2005_Volume12_Issue2

Tree Care Advisor Newsletter

Inside This Issue: What are these shrubs? By Dave Hanson

1

Quick Hits / Volunteer Opps By Dave Hanson

2

Putting Down Roots: By Cliff Johnson

3

Please Welcome,

TCA Class of 2005

5

Restoration + Buckthorn By Dave Hanson

6

Roundup™ and amphibi-ans… Research Report

12

Contacts 24

A Roundup of Thoughts by Alex Levy

13

Looking for Paul Bunyan by Marty Hair

18

Thank you by Gary! Factoid by Rebecca

20

Planting Native a Trend? by Colin Moore

15

Volume 12 Number 2 Spring 2005

Dave Hanson and Gary Johnson, Managing Editors

http://

www.mntca.org

Ah! Spring or is this summer?

The last record breaking news that I heard was that this has been the warmest

April since 1910… That is probably going to change since this April has been no

where near average.

The freight train was slow to get moving , again. Refer back to the winter newslet-

ter when the hours reported for 2004 were way behind… See the good news on

page 2.

Janet Larson has raised an issue to Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Council con-

cerning “over zealous” buckthorn removal - and I am following up on that…

So, lets look at buckthorn identification and some of the native shrubs that are of-

ten confused with it.

Keep your eye on http://www.mntca.org for upcoming activities - I

try to keep these up to date. Also, this is a good web site to check for

- this newsletter in color and take a look at the tree identification pages

- some good stuff ...

What are These Shrubs? By: Dave Hanson

Similarities get these plants in trouble… The lenticels in the bark, the slender twigs, thorns, and the black fruits all lead to frequent mis-identification. Typically, this is not a problem. However, during buckthorn busting season these shrubs of-ten have nowhere to hide and definitely nowhere to run. Many of our native shrubs have a tough time when buckthorn gets established in their midst. Then comes a buckthorn bust and the situation can turn downright ugly. Often, with little regard for true identities, all of the understory is removed in an effort to control one species in the mix, buckthorn. The shrubs or small trees that are most often confused – members of the cherry clan – wild plum (Prunus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), pin cherry (Prunus pennsylvanica) and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana). Buckthorn removal pro-jects are underway in many locations – so, this is a good time to dig out your favor-ite tree book and get familiar with the cherry clan.

Continued on Page 21

Wild plum blossoms below.

Page 2 Quick Hits

TCA Hours for 2004 - 5,500 total hours! So far...

Tree Trust and Home Depot:

A three part initiative with the first part being an “Ask the Expert Day” at a Home

Depot near you!

When: May 15th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Where: 16 Metro Home Depot locations.

Call Kirsten at 651-644-5800 or email to [email protected]

TCAs and an Education Opportunity:

An evening with Tom Prosser of Rainbow Tree Care. In anticipation of more

Dutch elm disease and understanding that TCAs answer a lot of homeowners

questions, Tom has generously offered to spend an evening on DED

Where: Linden Hills Park - Community Center Building

When: Thursday May 19th, 7-9 p.m.

TCA Hours

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Series2

In 2004 TCAs contributed in excess

of 5,500 volunteer hours to Urban

and Community forestry efforts.

This is an increase of more than 600

hours over 2003’s total.

Kudos to the group! The reputation

of the TCA program continues to

build and the TCAs are a respected

group!

In the past eleven years TCAs have

recorded over 37,400 Hours.

I believe the number exceeds that !

Have you reported your hours?

Keep up the good Work!

Page 3 Putting Down Roots - A column in the Chaska Herald.

By Cliff Johnson 'CHAT BEFORE YOU CHOP' NEIGHBOR'S OVER-HANGING BRANCHES Branches from the neighbor's huge wil-low tree drooped over into her yard, smothering her shrubs and littering her car, garage and driveway with twigs and leaves. I emailed her some articles on home-owner rights relative to neighbors' trees and informed her that she had a legal, not a horticultural, problem. Judging by the number of phone calls I've received over the years, contending with invading limbs and roots of neighbors' trees is a bigger problem than most real-ize, particularly in established neighbor-hoods where trees were planted dec-ades ago and now tower above rooftops and adjoining lots. What's a homeowner to do when a neighbor's tree invades "your space?" What are your rights when a neighbor's 50-year-old elm roots cause your side-walk to buckle? If your neighbor's apple tree produces juicy, red apples that hang on your side of the fence, can you pick them? The one thing you shouldn't do when a neighbor's tree interferes with your

space is to take the law into your own hands. "The law in Minnesota can answer some of your questions," explains Lorrie Stromme, an attorney and University of Minnesota Extension Service master gar-dener and tree care advisor, adding that the law isn't always clear on every issue. To determine whose tree it is, Stromme says to follow the trunk; the location of the tree trunk determines who owns the tree, including the branches, flowers, fruit, and all. The tree is also your neighbor's responsibility if a weak limb blows down in a windstorm, crushing your garage. Stromme adds that your neighbor can decide to cut down the tree that partially shaded your yard and you have no recourse against your neighbor for suddenly exposing your shade-loving perennials to all-day sun. Trees that grow on the boundary line between two properties have special rules, according to Stromme. In Minne-sota, a tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct. For example, adjoin-ing owners who split the costs of prun-ing and maintaining a boundary tree or hedge would probably be considered co-owners of the tree or hedge. So, when a broken limb or a tree disease becomes a

Frequently, we receive calls about encroaching trees - When someone asks, “What can I

do about that tree in my neighbors yard?” Proceed with caution, typically there is a history

between the neighbors! Fortunately, the answer is usually an easy one - Unfortunately, it is

the solution that can be difficult…

Lorrie Stromme (Hennepin County TCA) helps Cliff address that issue in this article…

Read on! Dave Hanson

Page 4 Putting Down Roots...

problem, the co-owners share responsi-bility for fixing the problem. Branches that overhang your property or tree roots that push up a sidewalk or clog a sewer are considered a nuisance. A nuisance in Minnesota is defined as "anything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of prop-erty, so as to interfere with the comfort-able enjoyment of life or property." One of Minnesota's leading cases on nui-sance trees involved a Minneapolis homeowner who planted an elm tree within 15 inches of the property line. Over the next 26 years, the tree grew to 30 inches in diameter and 75 feet tall. The trunk grew across the boundary line, pushing the fence out of alignment. The roots extended into the neighbor's yard and caused the sidewalk to tip to-ward the house, resulting in a drainage problem in the neighbor's basement. The court found that the tree was not a co-owned boundary tree but was a nui-sance, because the tree roots obstructed the neighbor's free use and enjoyment of their property. The neighbors sued for monetary dam-ages and an injunction to prune the roots or remove the tree. Experts for both sides acknowledged that corrective action to restore the grade would dam-age the roots and either kill the tree or make it dangerously unstable. The court ordered the tree cut down because the alternative -- severe root pruning -- would have weakened the tree or caused the tree to die, endangering the neighbor's home if the tree blew over in a windstorm.

Stromme says that Minnesota property owners have the right to use "self-help" to prune branches or roots of a neighbor's tree that encroaches onto their property but that the self-help re-quires discretion. Guidelines for self-help include: Prune only up to the boundary line, at your own expense. Don't trespass. Get permission to enter onto the neighbor's property to do the pruning, unless the encroaching branches or roots threaten to cause imminent harm to your property. Don't cut down a tree whose trunk is located on the neighbor's property, even if the branches stray onto your property. Maintain, don't destroy. Don't jeopardize the health of the tree or cause foresee-able injury. For example, pruning an oak tree from April through September could make the tree vulnerable to oak wilt, a virulent disease. Or pruning a tree's roots could destabilize the tree and cause it to topple over. A common frustration for many prop-erty owners is tree debris from a neighbor's tree: leaves, acorns, fallen fruit, branches seeds or sap. Stromme suggests that, just because you are sick and tired of cleaning up the debris is not cause for a lawsuit, at least in the eyes of the court. What about over-hanging fruit? "The rule of thumb is that if the tree trunk stands in a neighbor's yard, all of the fruit wherever it is hanging belongs to the

Page 5

neighbor," Stromme says. "Picking the fruit may not be so simple, however. Ownership of the fruit does not give the neighbor any right to trespass onto your property to retrieve the fruit. Courts would probably weigh the right to keep trespassers out of your yard against the tree owner's right to harvest the fruit of her tree." Each time I listen to another caller an-guishing over a neighbor's tree, I ask if he or she has discussed the problem with the neighbor. Too often, the answer is "No."

"Many of these problems can and should be worked out between neighbors, rather than becoming legal issues" Stromme says. In other words, "chat be-fore you chop" those irritating overhang-ing branches.

Please join me in welcoming the class of 2005! As you run into these folks at Mas-ter Gardener meetings, volunteer events or TCA updates please welcome them and help them get a handle on what it is that TCAs are up to…

Marc Battistini Dakota Margaret Brough Anoka

Ginger Cannon Hennepin Joyce Clarin Dakota

Kathleen Davies Hennepin Polly Drangeid Anoka Dave Guyot Carver

John Jirak Le Sueur Chris Johnson Dakota

Kristie Martinka Hennepin Colleen Mengelkoch Dakota Carolyn Metcalf Dakota John Schmahl Ramsey Elizabeth Spedaliere Dakota Margaret Sweeney Dakota

Paul Trcka Olmsted Kathryn Urberg Hennepin Verna VonGoltz Hennepin Mary Zeleny-Arimond Hennepin

Welcome the Class of 2005!

Page 6 Restoration and Buckthorn...

Restoration?

Many woodlots, scientific natural areas, and parks are being overrun by exotic ter-

restrial plant species! There are numerous examples of exotic species in research

articles, daily newspapers and in various newsletters. So, what are we waiting for?

Let’s get out there and remove some _________________ ! (fill in your favorite

exotic species) There is a lot of energy involved in a volunteer project, the hype,

the organization and the day of the event… Are we properly preparing people for

the task at hand?

Invasive?, Exotic?

Maybe everyone reading this article has been involved in a buckthorn bust or a

loosestrife lynch. Yet, how many of us understand what the terms “invasive”,

“exotic species” mean? Why the effort to remove these species? According to

Invasivespecies.gov (yes, there is a website; http://www.invasivespecies.gov/):

An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental

harm or harm to human health. (Executive Order 13112).

Invasive species can be plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g.,

microbes). Human actions are the primary means of invasive

species introductions.

Frankly, the list of invasive species is getting longer every year. Why? Look at the

last line of the definition from invasivespecies.gov provided above – human actions!

Minnesota Statues 2004, 84D.01 definitions - provide a very similar wording to this

definition:

Subd. 9a. Invasive species. "Invasive species" means a nonnative species that

can naturalize and:

(1) causes or may cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health;

or

(2) threatens or may threaten natural resources or the use of natural resources in the

state.

Those definitions of invasive species, in a sense, spell out a need for action and pro-

vide reason to control exotic, invasive species in order to protect or economy, our

environment and our health. So, on the flip side of the equation are the restora-

tion process and a myriad of questions. Let’s look at a few of the questions.


What is Right?

In every arena involving humans there are two sides to every discussion and the

restoration game is no different. With the concern for our economy, our health

and the health of the environment there comes a motivation to act. But, the con-

cerns and motivations should be tempered by the following arguments. For in-

stance; “Isn’t this simply mother nature’s process of change? Survival of the fittest,

if you will?” Another question that can be heard out there is; “What are we re-

storing this area to? What model tells us what vegetation is right? What book or

diagram describes the plants that should be here?”

These questions are valid to this discussion and should not be ignored. For Minne-

sota we have a fair idea of some of the species that were here prior to man and the

disturbances that man perpetrated on the land. Fossil records, pollen records and

records from various land surveys have been studied to produce maps such as the

Marschner map and the ecosystem maps from Minnesota DNR. These are land-

scape level maps and inherently rather broad in scope; thus, leaving some question

about the details of the flora and fauna of early Minnesota. An effort begun in

1987, called the Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) is providing a good

picture of what is in our landscape now and will provide a good knowledge base for

future generations.


On the large scale our actions are dealing with eco-systems (most exotic species

projects are micro-scale) and we should have a vision, we should have a plan in the

form of a management plan for our yard, park, woodlot, city, forest, on up to the

landscape level State management plans. A project should not move forward if there

isn’t a plan for the future on paper. The plan may be as simple as a landscape design

for a small yard or it might be a complex management plan for a large National For-

est. The bottom line is, it is not simply good enough to remove “_____________”

the exotic species and assume all will be right in that eco-system. What will take the

place of the exotic species?

A focus…

For the sake of continuing this discussion lets focus and zero in on everyone’s favor-

ite exotic invader… Rhamnus cathartica, Common European Buckthorn! While

we’re at it we might as well consider its cousin Rhamnus frangula (also see: Frangula

alnus) - glossy, columnar buckthorn and its cultivars also… These species are consid-

ered noxious weeds in Minnesota, thus there are efforts to control them.

Minnesota’s Noxious Weed Law and Minnesota Rules state:

1505.0732 RESTRICTED NOXIOUS WEEDS.

The plants listed in this part are restricted noxious weeds whose only feasible means of

control is to prohibit the importation, sale, and transportation of them or their propagating

parts in the state except as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section 18.82.

Common Name Botanical Name: Buckthorn, common or European Rhamnus cathartica

(L.)

Buckthorn, glossy, including all cultivars *Rhamnus frangula (L.), (columnaris, tallcole, asplenifolia and

all other cultivars)

*Rhamnus frangula is a restricted noxious weed effective December 31, 2000.

Buckthorn raises concern not so much for human health reasons, but for environ-

mental health and some concern for Minnesota’s soybean industry.

Buckthorn is an amazing competitor in our natural areas and has the ability to out-

compete other plants for light, space and nutrient resources. The herbaceous layer

under buckthorn is usually eliminated by the buckthorn canopy and its alleleopathic

traits. This loss of the herbaceous layer not only leads to erosion problems on sites

with steep slopes, but also reduces the diversity of the natural area.

Lack of diversity in the herbaceous layer and in seedling production (trees and

shrubs) has long term effects for the site. Not only is the plant community affected,

but eventually songbirds and other wildlife find little value in the resources and dis-

Rhamnus cathartica

Common buckthorn

Rhamnus frangula

Some sources list as:

Frangula alnus

Glossy buckthorn

Below: Rhamnus frangula var.

‘asplenifolia’


continue use of the area.

The fact that buckthorn is an alternate host for some crop pests also raises some

concern.

So, buckthorn busting becomes a pastime for volunteer groups and many of us have

taken up the weapons of buckthorn busting such as: weed-wrenches, chainsaws,

brush-cutters and chemicals. At the end of the day it is gratifying to see the pile of

brush that was removed and to gaze into the woods where previously stood an

impenetrable thicket of buckthorn brush.

A Reason to Pause…

Yet, recently, a red flag was raised. Janet Larson, (Hennepin County TCA and fa-

mous buckthorn buster) placed a very pointed topic before the Forest Health Sub-

Committee of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Council (MnSTAC).

Janet is a strong advocate for educating the public on buckthorn and for the follow-

ing reason is raising an alarm, “Overzealous ‘brushing’ without protection of the native

shrub layer, ground cover layer, and soil is ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater.’ In

essence, buckthorn removal projects are moving ahead without a good plan in

hand. What plants need to be removed? Why? And, how can the task be accom-

plished in an environmentally safe manner?

The pause needs to happen right up front and needs to be in the form of education.

Education of the project leaders and supervisors needs to cover a number of bases.

• Why should the invasive species be removed?

o The site may or may not be at a point yet where there is true con-

cern. Yet, buckthorn is a prolific seed producer and the seed sur-

vives in the seed bank for up to 6 years. The seed is also trans-

ported to nearby areas, thus expanding the infestation.

• What are the best methods (for this site) to eliminate the species?

o There are sites that may not benefit from complete removal of the

plants. If the site is on a slope or if the ground cover is non-existent

the appropriate treatment may be to kill the buckthorn with chemi-

cal applications and leave it standing.

• What does the plant look like and are there similar plants in the area?

o In Minnesota there are a number of plants with similar characteris-

tics that project leaders and volunteers should know. The cherries,


black cherry (Prunus serotina) and choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) are

two such plants that are relatively common.

• What are some of the potential environmental issues following removal?

o The potential for erosion events will increase. Additionally, be aware of

other exotic species on the site. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), for

example, can really become a problem after the competing buckthorn

overstory is removed.

• Everyone (not just the applicator) should be aware of any chemicals being used

and should have the opportunity to read the product label.

• The proper chemical product should be chosen for the site. Neighbor-

ing vegetation, proximity to water resources, and proximity to human

activity should be noted and taken into consideration.

• After care for the site… What becomes of the site after buckthorn removal

efforts make some headway? Buckthorn will come back from a variety of

sources! Any plan should clearly state what follow-up treatments will be

needed. Another consideration, replanting of native species may be necessary

in the tree, shrub and herbaceous layers of the site.

The removal of buckthorn, aesthetically, produces a dramatic change in a stand of

trees. Where once was a wall of green foliage, following buckthorn removal a forest

with individual tree stems is revealed. Where once was an impenetrable wall of green

foliage, following buckthorn removal a person may be tempted to hike through the

woods.

The removal of buckthorn, environmentally, produces a dramatic change in a stand

of trees. Light penetration to the forest floor is increased dramatically for the herba-

ceous layer. Competition for nutrients, space, light and moisture is dramatically re-

duced. Buckthorn removal allows seedlings of other plants to be released…

But, is simply removing the offender enough? This is where the management plan

really kicks in to action. A management plan would likely have been based on an inven-

tory or an assessment noting plants in the herbaceous layer, shrub layer, sub canopy

and the dominant canopy of the plot. With this knowledge one can start to

make decisions regarding replanting options or the possibility that simple con-

trol of competing species will allow desired native plants to regain a foot hold.

Dieing hackberry – sensi-tive to Tordon RTU cut-stump treatments used during a buckthorn re-moval three years ago.

Buckthorn returns with a vengeance… Three years

post treatment!

Almost all of the green here are the leaves of buckthorn

seedlings


Buckthorn returning (resprouting) three years after treatment. What was done wrong? Maybe nothing!

Buckthorn is a tough, tenacious plant. But, was there a follow-up plan?

Buckthorn seedlings from the seed bank versus a young Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra). Which will likely

come out on top in the struggle for space, light, water, and nutrients. Probably the buckthorn!

Buckthorn removal during

the winter of 2004-2005.

Re-sprouting April of 2005.

Below: Buckthorn stump

sprouts - 3 years after treat-

ment. The cut stump is in

the center of the five new

stems…

This stump and new growth

are in the understory of the

photo to the left.

Page 12 Roundup® highly lethal to amphibians 03 Apr 2005

The herbicide Roundup® is widely used to eradicate weeds. But a study published today by a University of Pittsburgh researcher finds that the chemical may be eradi-cating much more than that. Pitt assistant professor of biology Rick Relyea found that Roundup®, the second most commonly applied herbicide in the United States, is "extremely lethal" to am-phibians. This field experiment is one of the most extensive studies on the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms in a natural setting, and the results may provide a key link to global amphibian declines. In a paper titled "The Impact of Insecticides and Herbicides on the Biodiversity and Productivity of Aquatic Communities," published in the journal Ecological Applica-tions, Relyea examined how a pond's entire community--25 species, including crus-taceans, insects, snails, and tadpoles--responded to the addition of the manufactur-ers' recommended doses of two insecticides--Sevin® (carbaryl) and malathion--and two herbicides--Roundup® (glyphosate) and 2,4-D. Relyea found that Roundup® caused a 70 percent decline in amphibian biodiversity and an 86 percent decline in the total mass of tadpoles. Leopard frog tadpoles and gray tree frog tadpoles were completely eliminated and wood frog tadpoles and toad tadpoles were nearly eliminated. One species of frog, spring peepers, was un-affected. "The most shocking insight coming out of this was that Roundup®, something de-signed to kill plants, was extremely lethal to amphibians," said Relyea, who con-ducted the research at Pitt's Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology. "We added Roundup®, and the next day we looked in the tanks and there were dead tadpoles all over the bottom." Relyea initially conducted the experiment to see whether the Roundup® would have an indirect effect on the frogs by killing their food source, the algae. However, he found that Roundup®, although an herbicide, actually increased the amount of al-gae in the pond because it killed most of the frogs. "It's like killing all the cows in a field and seeing that the field has more grass in it--not because you made the grass grow better, but because you killed everything that eats grass," he said. Previous research had found that the lethal ingredient in Roundup® was not the herbicide itself, glyphosate, but rather the surfactant, or detergent, that allows the herbicide to penetrate the waxy surfaces of plants. In Roundup®, that surfactant is a chemical called polyethoxylated tallowamine. Other herbicides have less danger-ous surfactants: For example, Relyea's study found that 2,4-D had no effect on tad-poles. "We've repeated the experiment, so we're confident that this is, in fact, a repeatable result that we see," said Relyea. "It's fair to say that nobody would have guessed Roundup® was going to be so lethal to amphibians."

Contact: Karen Hoffman [email protected] 412-624-4356

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center http://www.upmc.edu

This is a story and topic

that we need to watch! It

will be interesting to see

how it unfolds in the

coming months or years.

Round-up is a popular

choice when it comes to

buckthorn eradication

efforts.

Comments by Dave

Warning!

If you read

“Roundup Highly lethal…”

Then you need to read

the follow-up on page 13,

“A Roundup of Thoughts.”

Page 13

I'm no environmental toxicologist, but as an ecologist (and reader of HerpDigest) with an interest in resource conservation and protection, I felt inclined to gather some thoughts and feedback about the recent Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report of the University of Pittsburgh study about Roundup® being highly lethal to amphibi-ans. Naturally, the news has created a buzz of concern among conservation pro-fessionals and land-managers who recognize the importance of Roundup's® main ingredient, glyphosate, as a valuable tool in fighting invasive vegetation to protect both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. It should be noted that polyethoxylated tallowamine is the surfactant the study impli-cates in toxicity to amphibians. This surfacant is an ingredient in Roundup®. How-ever, the important main ingredient, glyophosate, was not shown as responsible for the reported frog kills. Therefore, the report of the abstract makes what appears to be an irresponsible assertion that presumes the morbid results of using Roundup® in a tank containing tadpoles as being indicative of the herbicide's culpability in widespread amphibian declines. Furthermore, several vegetation management spe-cialists calculated that the concentrated rate of Roundup® used in the reported ex-periments was seven times greater than for ordinary field application. Because all Roundup® products include the precaution, "Do not apply directly to water, to areas where water is present or intertidal areas below the mean high wa-ter mark", their use in a manner such as was done in the subject study would in-fact be a violation of the law. While I am not so naive as to believe that everyone follows the label instructions, it seems unlikely that people would accidentally apply seven times the field rate to ponds and streams. "It is because of the surfactant [in Roundup®] that the Aqua Master® (formerly Ro-deo®), formulation of glyphosate is required to be used on plants in water. There are [glyphosate] versions in the hardware stores without the same surfactant," said Marc Imlay, an invasive species control expert with the Maryland Native Plant Soci-ety. Penn State Department of Horticulture's Art Gover, former Research & Education Coordinator for the Northeastern Weed Science Society and past president of the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council, Inc., said, "the information in the abstract and the press piece do not provide enough information to know what dosage of her-bicide was used, or what glyphosate product was used. Drawing conclusions and contemplating changes in vegetation management practices based on the informa-tion available in the abstract or the press release would not be prudent." Mr. Gover elaborated, "the product Roundup® (now Roundup Original®, as well as many of the generics) contained an ethoxylated tallowamine (also known poly-oxyethyleneamine, or POEA) as a surfactant. Rodeo® and its MANY equals are surfactant free. Except for the product Glyphomate 41® (mfg. PBI-Gordon), aquatic-labeled formulations of glyphosate are surfactant-free and specify the use of a surfactant approved for aquatic applications".

A Roundup of Thoughts

by --Alex Levy, Ecologist,

Federal Highway Admini-

stration

Surfactants are an additive that help

an herbicide adhere to,

spread over and in some

cases penetrate the sur-

face tissues of a plant.

Roundup is produced in

many formulations and

with a variety of surfac-

tants.

A complicating factor for

this research.

Comment by Dave

Page 14

A response from the maker of Roundup®, Monsanto, can be found here: http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8800 According to Sue Salmons, Liaison for the Exotic Plant Management Team with the National Park Service's National Capital Region, "because news articles are neces-sarily brief, important details were left out. In response to Monsanto's criticisms of the Relyea (2005) study of Roundup's® lethal effects on amphibians, there is now also a webpage that addresses Monsanto's concerns: http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Roundup.html " Again, it is important to note that it is not glyphosate that causes the problem, but the surfactant. This is something that is not news, contrary to the last line of the arti-cle. Just the same, it would be wise to look toward alternatives to glyphosate prod-ucts. However, they are already among the most benign herbicides, if we must use one. For conservationists the discreet use of this family of chemicals is less dam-aging to habitats than induced erosion from mechanical weed management, and has far-fewer consequences than allowing the proliferation of invasive vegetation. Another university researcher puts it this way, "Save the frogs, but lose the bog?" We're probably better-off cautioning the public to use only aquatic formulations near water and reminding agricultural users to be careful.

A Roundup of Thoughts... continued

The report on page 12 came from a variety of sources:

Weed Killer Poses Dangers To Frogs (Roundup) Pittsburgh (Pa.) Tribune-Review, Apr. 2, 2005, By Jennifer Bails

Posted in HerpDigest Issue Volume # 5 Issue # 39

The original Paper and Abstract:

THE IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ON THE BIODIVERSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF AQUATIC COMMUNITIES Ecological Applications: Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 618*627. Rick A. Relyeaa A Department of Biological Sciences, 101 Clapp Hall, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 USA

Page 15

Has planting native trees and shrubs in the landscape become as trendy as the re-surgence of Pabst Blue Ribbon among early twenties urbanites? Maybe not, yet in some senses a comparison can be made. Just as quickly as thirty packs of PBR disappear from liquor stores and gas stations, native species are being placed into residential, commercial, and a multitude of additional urban landscapes.

Are these isolated incidents benefiting the greater good of humanity? In the case of PBR absolutely not, it may be just a pop culture trend that is destined to join fanny packs, wine coolers, and fondue in the graveyard of former hot market items. When speaking of planting native species, the answer is both yes and no. The term native itself spawns good thoughts in terms of landscaping. However, there are certain guidelines that need to be met by landscaping trendsetters and followers when developing planting schemes. Apply the catch phrase “don’t believe the hype” when planting because, hold on to your yoga mat, native species are not always the best plant for the site.

What Are Native Species?

Native species are those that have existed prior to Euro-pean colonization. The United States consists of many different climatic patterns and growing conditions. The same is true on a local level in the state of Minnesota. The varying conditions deter-mine how a plant will succeed at a particular location, or site. The problem with selecting a native plant is matching that plant with a native condition.

When selecting a plant, first determine the conditions that best suit that plant. The United States is separated into differ-ent climatic zones that are determined by the area’s average mini-mum annual temperature. A particular plant’s ability to survive in a given zone is referred to as the plant’s cold hardiness. In order for a plant to survive a specific site’s conditions it must be cold hardy enough, among other things. The state of Minnesota alone has 5 different plant hardiness zones. Temperatures within these zones range from –20 to –45 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result of the hardiness zones, a Basswood native to the southern/central portion of Minnesota would struggle to survive in International Falls at the northernmost portion of the state.

Native Versus Urbanized Sites

Although temperature has a major impact on where plants succeed, possibly more important is the individual site the plant is growing on. Just as humans need water, oxygen, and nutrients to survive, so do trees. Many sites have been altered from their original state and no longer are suitable for native species. Soils in urban settings have been highly al-tered and become completely different than before the area was developed. These soils

Is Planting Native a Passing Trend? No, But…

By: Colin Moore Undergraduate - Bachelor of Environmental Design.

College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture.

Refer to page 7 for more infor-

mation on our understanding of

“what is a native plant.”

Page 16

are no longer native and may not support native plants as well as before.

Urban amenities like roads and buildings contribute to altered site conditions. By-products of cars, concrete, and in Minnesota, de-icing salts among other factors drastically change soil quality. Pollutants enter the soil and change the natural chemical structure (acidic or alkaline), or pH balance. When the chemicals become greatly different from what they once were, trees that were once native to the site struggle to survive in these newly created conditions.

Urban areas and suburban housing divisions are typically very open and covered with concrete. In contrast, natural forests and growing conditions are not. When a tree that is native to a thick forest is planted in a narrow, sun exposed boulevard or next to building, its native condition has been drastically changed. Natural forests are densely populated with similar trees, have limited light, and moist soils. The urbanized areas are the direct opposite of the plant’s native conditions. Urban roads and sidewalks create a warmer climate by storing heat from the sun and slowly releasing it throughout the day. Plants subjected to these conditions must struggle to obtain enough water, oxygen, and nutrients to maintain a healthy existence. In developed areas, it is extremely difficult to obtain the plant’s essentials without human intervention.

Much of the water that trees are using runs off sidewalks and streets directly to the root system. While the water is running across paved surfaces, it picks up pollutants like gas, oil, and de-icing salts. Trees subjected to these altered conditions often have stunted growth, lack of normal color, and wilting leaves. Overall, the trees do not look healthy because they are not healthy.

There are a variety of additional conditions that contribute to a lack of success in native trees within supposedly native conditions. Air pollution, in addition to soil pollution compromises the health of native trees. More specifically, Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and Ozone (O3) are common urban pollutants that limit a plant’s ability to photosynthesize properly. Construction processes and even foot traffic can change the quality of a site and eventually the health of plants on the site. By constructing buildings, roads, and parking lots soil com-position is drastically changed.

Soil composition has several layers of varying soil types. Tree roots grow mostly in the first 2-3 feet of soil depth, within the most nutrient rich topsoil. Beneath that are vary-ing types of soil. Construction processes often mix these different levels of soils, resulting in less healthy topsoil. Native plants that could thrive in the original topsoil now struggle to maintain in less rich soil. Soil also has a small amount of oxygen that allows for a root sys-tem to breathe. Heavy machinery and excessive foot traffic compresses the soil, driving out the oxygen, and endangering the health of native plants. When soils become compacted and overturned, drainage also suffers. Plants may basically drown. A tree for the site then becomes one that can tolerate poorly drained soils and polluted soils. In many cases the plant needed is not native.

Granted many of these altered conditions can compromise the health of any plant,

Is Planting Native a Passing Trend? No, But… Continued

Construction around existing

trees and future planting sites

alters the soil dramatically.

Above Structural and composi-

tional changes of the soil.

Below: Concrete clean-out on-

site.

Salt spray damage to a young

spruce.

Page 17

the lack of a native condition no longer exists. Are native species a trendy choice? No. Are native species a bad planting choice? Absolutely not, however native site conditions must exist for native plants to thrive and live up to their hype as the best planting choice. And when native site conditions exist, native plants thrive. As a general rule of thumb when planting natives, Horticulturist, Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott, recommends using the following guidelines:

• Native, temperate forest plants are excellent choices for unrestricted sites with acidic, well-drained soils.

• For sites with limited, alkaline, and/or poorly drained soils, choose species adapted to environments with similar soils. Consider espe-cially those species that tolerate clay soils (these plants can be native).

• For sites exposed to increased temperature, choose species adapted to hot, dry climates that can also tolerate local winters. .

• Be sure to protect soils with mulch, especially where foot traffic causes com-paction.

• Site considerations should always dictate plant selection.

Just as yoga is an excellent form of relaxation, an ice-cold can of PBR is delicious on a hot summer day, and fondue can make for a fun party, native plants are the best choice; the situation just has to be right. As for the fanny pack there never has been, nor will there ever be a good use for it.

For more information on selecting the best plants for your landscape:

• The University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources Extension Webpage at

www.cnr.umn.edu/FR/extension/index.html

o Click “Urban and Community Forestry” link

o Select “Tree and Shrub Selection” and search for relevant articles

• The University of Minnesota Extension Webpage at www.extension.umn.edu

o Click “garden” link

o Select “Landscaping-Plant Selection”

o Find articles regarding native plant selection

• Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott’s report at www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-

Scott/

o Click on “Horticultural Myths” link

o Find myth regarding native plants under 2001 heading

Is Planting Native a Passing Trend? No, But… Continued

Chlorosis problems due to soil

changes on an urban site.

Quercus alba - white oak.

Page 18

EMERALD ASH BORERS: State looking for Paul Bunyan-like people to chop trees

April 4, 2005

BY MARTY HAIR

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

With little cash and a big need to cut down ash trees around four outbreaks of em-

erald ash borers, the Michigan agriculture department is seeking a giant helping

hand.

Hey, Paul!

Paul Bunyan!

This is no tall tale.

Some 900 tree-cutters, timber and paper companies received letters last month

asking them to pitch in to drop a circle of ash trees within a half mile of borer in-

festations in Emmet, Cheboygan, Presque Ile and Alcona counties in northern

Lower Michigan.

The problem is there is no way to pay for the removal.

Less than half of the hoped-for federal dollars for tree removal has been released.

The agriculture department has spent it to get rid of ash trees around remote in-

festations outside a 20-county quarantine.

"Without full funding, we've had to get a little creative," said Jennifer Quimby, a

state agriculture department spokesperson.

The state's strategy -- devised with the help of a national panel of scientists -- is to

remove ash trees within a half mile of infestations to starve the local population of

borers. The borers have killed 15 million ash trees in the quarantined counties and

in 18 so-called outliers, or infestations beyond the quarantine. Michigan has an esti-

mated 700 million ash trees.

The wood-boring beetles, believed to have hitched a ride into Michigan from Asia

in packing wood material, have spread to Ohio, Indiana, Ontario and isolated spots

in Virginia and Maryland.

So far, emerald ash borers have not turned up in the Upper Peninsula. To keep it

that way, the state agriculture department will begin inspecting all firewood at the

Mackinac Bridge this spring. It is illegal to take firewood out of the quarantined

counties or the outliers.

AN AMERICAN LEGEND

Paul Bunyan is the mythi-cal king of the lumberjacks.

Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox roamed the timberlands from Maine to Minnesota when logging camps were a way of life. The tall tales that lumberjacks spun about Bunyan and Babe are bigger than life and, each year, dozens of com-munities in the United States and Canada hold festivals to cook up new stories. Here are a few:

• When he was born, it took five giant storks work-ing in relay to deliver Bun-yan to his parents.

• A lumber wagon drawn by teams of oxen was Bun-yan's baby carriage.

• His clothes were so large he had to use wagon wheels for buttons.

• In the year of the Blue Snow when it was so cold the geese had to fly back-ward, Bunyan found a baby ox in the ice. Even when warmed up, the ox stayed blue and Bunyan named him Babe.

• Babe grew so big he was seven ax handles and a plug of tobacco wide be-tween the eyes.

• Bunyan and Babe roamed the Midwestern woods performing feats of strength and courage. To this day Bunyan's lung power is so great that you can hear him whistling through the hollow trees of the forest.

State looking for Paul Bunyan-like people to chop trees

Page 19

The agriculture department is asking arborists and other companies to determine

how much it would cost them to remove the trees in the four northern Lower

Michigan outliers, how they'd use the wood -- possibilities include to make paper,

as boards or as fuel -- and how much it would be worth to them.

If interested, the potential Paul Bunyans would have to agree with the state on a

price, on which trees to cut and sign a contract promising to minimize site dis-

ruption.

"The value of the wood may be equal to or less than the cost to remove it. If

there is a profit, that would go to the property owner," said Gary King, a dep-

uty agriculture director.

Last fall, the state asked the federal government for $29.5 million for its 2005

fight against emerald ash borers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recom-

mended $22 million for all the affected states. The Office of Management and

Budget has released $11 million. King said he hopes more money will be head-

ing this way within two months. If it materializes, the state may try additional

ways to remove the ash trees in the four northern counties.

The best time to remove the ash trees would be before May, when the new gen-

eration of adult beetles emerges and starts flying. However, because of the time

required to line up contracts and arrange work at sometimes swampy sites, it may

not be possible to cut the trees until summer, fall or even next winter, King said.

The state is cutting ash trees in Hillsdale and St. Clair counties, which are within

the quarantine. They are considered gateways, or places where the beetle could

jump into new territory. The agriculture department also set 10,000 trap trees last

year to map the outer boundary of the borers' population.

For more on the insects, go to www.emeraldashborer.info.

Contact MARTY HAIR at 313-222-2005 or [email protected].

State looking for Paul Bunyan-like people to chop trees

Above: Firewood tests Left: Trap Trees for population checks Photos: USDA Forest Service

20 Counties in Michigan now

under quarantine and 16 out-

lying quarantines.

EAB adult

Page 20

On a cold and snowy April 2…actually, it was a pretty nice day, yet another Satur-day when lots of volunteer work was being done. Finally, after almost 13 years of whining, there is laboratory space for urban forestry and arboriculture research and training! Room 130 in Green Hall, University of Minnesota, home of the De-partment of Forest Resources is now (mostly) a lab for students and Tree Care Advisors to learn more about tree care in a hands-on environment. No more vac-uuming the carpeting in room 203 after core course training!!! Getting the space was the first step. Going through and throwing away decades of "stuff," sorting through and saving the valuables, and finally, giving everything a good scrubbing was the second step. Seven of us toiled away on that Saturday, and by mid-afternoon, it was looking pretty good. Smelled a lot better, too. Now, the third step - actually moving in and setting up shop - is ready to be undertaken. Dave will have a second office and a much better hiding place. Gary will have an-other space to store crap. Chad will have a new research facility. All the TCA's will eventually have the opportunity to take advantage of the facility during update training sessions. Eventually, we'll have our slabs of wood, root system cadavers, slides, tools, stuff that you can borrow for your own volunteer teaching opportunities, but above all, a sense of place. I would personally like to thank those volunteers that helped on April 2 to get that space in order and begin a new era in the TCA program. You people work hard and are a lot of fun to work hard with:

Tree Care Advisors Help Prepare New Laboratory Space

Barb Kirkpatrick, Ramsey County Rebecca Koetter, Ramsey County

Roxanne Hardy, Washington County Nancy Bjerke, Hennepin County

Lu Schmidtke, Dakota County Mike Oslund, Isanti County

The acorn is actually a fruit, which is an ovary, which is the female reproductive

part of plants. So, the bottom portion of the acorn is the ovary (outer layer aka.

pericarp) which contains a seed. The acorn cap is what attaches the

ovary to the branch (a.k.a. bract or modified leaf tissues), which is a

type of ground tissue. Ground tissue is composed of parenchyma,

collenchyma, and sclerenchyma cells. The cap has sclerenchyma cells

that can be further divided into sclereids. Sclereids occur throughout

plants including shells of walnuts, hull of peanuts, or the core of an

apple. In conclusion: sclereid cells make up the cap of an acorn!

Rebecca’s Factoid…! Rebecca Koetter, TCA

On occasion, you get that ques-

tion… After much pondering

and researching - you just have

to share what you have learned!

Below: Red Oak (Quercus ru-

bra) Acorns

Page 21 What are These Shrubs? Continued from page 1

If you have the opportunity, head out into a woodlot and find yourself some cherry trees (wild plum, also) and shrubs to look at. In the next few paragraphs I’ll go over some of the characteristics that you should look for and then wrap this section up with a comparison to buckthorn. The first thing to note about the plants being discussed here – Common buck-thorn appears to be and is often described as oppositely branched, a better description is sub-opposite. The members of the Prunus family (cherries and plum) are alternate. Remember this trait carries right down to the bud and leaf set. American plum: Prunus americana: Shrub to small tree 15-25 feet, Leaves: Alternate, simple lance shaped leaves with sharp doubly-toothed margins. The leaves are typically dark green in color and look to the bottom for some white hair. On the petiole or leaf stalk, look for two glands which appear as raised dark dots. Twigs: Hairy light brown to greenish in color. Break a twig and check for the aroma of bitter almonds. This plant actually has thorn-like spur shoots that often lends to it being confused with buckthorn. Buds: Pointed, scales with a reddish-brown color. Fruit: Up to 3/4 to 1 inch in diameter. The fruit is reddish, yellowish, to orangey in color and maturing to a darker red to purple color. The fruit can be eaten and is often made into jams and jellies. Bark: A smooth bark that is reddish brown to dark brown and as it matures the bark breaks up into small scaly plates that peel from the trunk. Wild (American) plum is shade in-tolerant as a young tree and it tends to be a fast growing tree. Root sprouting is common with this species and it will form into dense thickets.

Sub-opposite leaf set of com-

mon buckthorn. Often de-

scribed as opposite.

All Photos: Dave Hanson

Photos of Prunus Americana:

Early spring flowers - April 25th.

Above: leaves of wild plum in

June.

Far left: Peeling, almost papery

gray bark on the main stem.

Left: Plums in June - nice green

color.

Below: Plum thorns, hence con-

fusion with buckthorn...

Page 22 What are These Shrubs? Continued

Black Cherry: Prunus serotina: Medium to large tree 40-60 feet, Minnesota Champion: 75 feet tall. However, often a small understory tree – shrub-like. Leaves: Alternate, simple lance shaped leaves with finely toothed margins. The leaves are typically shiny, with a good green color and look to the bottom midrib (center vein) for some white to orange hairs. The hairs can be clumped at the vein joints or run along the midrib. On the petiole or leaf stalk, look for two glands which appear as raised dark dots. Twigs: Slender twigs that are typically reddish brown with white dots (lenticels). Break a twig and check for the aroma of almonds. Buds: Pointed or blunt, scales with a bright reddish brown color. Fruit: Berry like drupe that is fairly small – up to 3/8 inch in diameter. The fruit begins reddish in color and maturing to a dark purple color. The fruit can be eaten and is often made into jams and jellies. Bark: On young trees and smaller stems, look for a smooth grayish to dark col-ored bark with light colored lenticels (short horizontal lines). Mature stems are very dark with scaly plates that peel from the trunk. Black cherry is shade tolerant as a young tree, but as it matures it must find an opening in the canopy or it will likely not survive. Chokecherry: Prunus virginiana: Medium to large tree 15-20 feet, Leaves: Alternate, simple leaves ovoid with finely toothed margins. The leaves are typically shiny, with a good green color. The veins are typically more prominent giving the leaf a rougher looking upper surface than those of black cherry. On the petiole or leaf stalk, look for two glands which appear as raised dark dots. Twigs: Slender twigs that are typically reddish brown with white dots (lenticels). Break a twig and check for the strong aroma of bitter almonds. Buds: Pointed, scales with a bright reddish brown color. Fruit: Berry like drupe that is fairly small – 1/4 to 3/8 inch in diameter. Reddish in color and maturing to a dark purple color in the autumn. The fruit can be eaten and is often made into jams and jellies. Bark: On young trees and smaller stems, look for a smooth dark brown to gray-ish bark. Mature stems are fairly smooth retaining a lighter color than black cherry and the bark is shallowly fissured. Choke cherry is not as shade tolerant as black cherry.

Cherries: Note that the flowers and fruit are on racemes - not solitary or paired as on the plums. See photo to the right... Above: Bark of a small black cherry. Below: Compare, Top is black cherry bottom is chokecherry.

Below: Chokecherry shrub in a

prairie setting.

Bottom: Nice red early season

chokecherries.

Quick scan for prunus: Look for

black knot, Not all cherry

shrubs or trees have black knot,

but its presence is a signal...

Page 23 What are These Shrubs? Continued

Pin or Fire Cherry: Prunus pennsylvanica: Small tree 10-30 feet, Minnesota Champion: 63 feet tall. Leaves: Alternate, simple, lance shaped leaves with finely toothed margins and long pointed end. The leaves are typically shiny, with a good green color. On the petiole or leaf stalk, look for two glands which appear as raised dark dots. Twigs: Typically shiny, reddish with orange dots (lenticels). Look for spur shoots on pin cherry. Break a twig and check for the aroma of almonds. Buds: Typically clustered at the twig ends and blunt, scales with a bright reddish brown color. Fruit: Berry like drupe that is fairly small – up to 1/4 inch in diameter. Bright red in color and maturing in the autumn. The fruit can be eaten and is often made into jams and jellies. Bark: On young trees and smaller stems, look for a smooth reddish-gray colored bark with orange lenticels (short horizontal lines). Mature bark is papery and gray-ish. Pin cherry is not shade tolerant and it is typically a fast growing, short lived tree. Those are the Minnesota natives that are often thrown on the brush pile with buckthorn. Compare these Minnesota native shrubs to European common buck-thorn and you will see why the confusion persists. Common or European Buck-thorn: Rhamnus cathartica: Shrub or small tree 8-20 feet, Leaves: Sub-opposite to al-ternate often described as op-posite, simple, ovoid shaped leaves that end in a long pointed tip. The margins are finely toothed. The leaves are typically shiny, with a good green color. Compare the vein pattern – buck-thorn has arcuate venation – the veins tend to arc towards the tip of the leaf. Note: There are no glands which appear as raised dark dots on the petiole. Twigs: Typically, gray with spur shoots that terminate with a spine. Buds: Sub-opposite bud sets – brown hairy scales on the buds. Fruit: Bluish to black berry like drupe that is fairly small – up to 5/16 inch in diameter. Fruit matures in the autumn. The fruit cannot be eaten (has cathartic or purgative effects). Bark: On young trees and smaller stems, look for a smooth gray colored bark with light colored lenti-cels (short horizontal lines). Mature bark is dark in color and begins to lift in small plates.

All Photos: Dave Hanson

Above: Fruits of chokecherry.

Keep in mind that there are

strong similarities between the

three Minnesota native cherries.

Above: Buckthorn leaf - sub-

opposite, arcuate venation.

Drupes or berrys of buckthorn.

Bottom: Buckthorn understory

with leaves November 23, 04.

Contact Phone Numbers Program Contacts: Gary Johnson – 612-625-3765 or [email protected] Dave Hanson – 612-624-1226 or [email protected] Mailing Address: 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Ave. North, St. Paul, MN 55108 Contacts: Regional Extension Educators: Bob Mugaas – 651-480-7706 Patrick Weicherding, – 763-767-3836 or [email protected] Gary Wyatt, 507-389-8325 or [email protected] County Contacts: Carver County (Jackie Smith) - (952) 442-4496 or [email protected] Dakota County (Barb Stendahl) – 952-463-8002 or [email protected] Olmstead County – 507-285-8250 Ramsey County – 651-777-8156 Scott County (Jackie Smith) - (952) 492-5410 or [email protected] St. Louis County (Bob Olen) – 218-726-7512

TCAAG Members:

Additional Reference Contacts: Debby Newman (Info-U) – 612-624-3263

Don Mueller, DNR Forestry – 651-772-6148

[email protected]

Ken Holman, DNR Forestry – 651-296-9110 [email protected]

Paul Walvatne MNDOT – 651-284-3793

[email protected]

Great River Greening – 651-665-9500

Tree Trust – 651-644-5800

Bob Condon – 952-890-1228 Mimi Hottinger – 507-388-4838

Paula Denman – 612-338-1871 Lisa McDonald - 612-721-2672,

Laurie Drolson – 651-464-9829 Betsy McDonough - 651-779-0437

Bruce Granos – 952-423-5211, Lu Schmidtke - 651-455-6125

The story terminator for this issue - Wild Ginger - Asarum canadense.

This plant is a spring ephemeral on the forest floor. These photos were

taken on April 29th of 2004. For a number of years, I had visited this

spot in the woods to see the flowers of wild ginger. In 2004, I finally

ventured in on the right day and was able to see the flower first hand.

Be cautious when handling the plant - it is reported that some people

suffer from contact dermatitis.

And finally, while the taste and odor of the rhizome is similar to that of

ginger - this is not the source of that culinary delight.

2005_Volume12_Issue2

Documents

buckthorn identification

restoration buckthorn

native shrubs

dave hanson similarities

zealous buckthorn removal

tree trust

tree identification

black cherry prunus