Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
hongcai lu
 -- 38 2024-01-27 10:21:39 |
2 update references and layout
Rita Xu
 + 2021 word(s) 2059 2024-01-29 02:46:21 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Shang, Q.; Lu, H.; Yang, M.; Wu, Y.; Chen, Q. Tree Trunk Injection. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54434 (accessed on 19 May 2024).
Shang Q, Lu H, Yang M, Wu Y, Chen Q. Tree Trunk Injection. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54434. Accessed May 19, 2024.
Shang, Qingqing, Hongcai Lu, Mengdi Yang, Yujie Wu, Qing Chen. "Tree Trunk Injection" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54434 (accessed May 19, 2024).
Shang, Q., Lu, H., Yang, M., Wu, Y., & Chen, Q. (2024, January 27). Tree Trunk Injection. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54434
Shang, Qingqing, et al. "Tree Trunk Injection." Encyclopedia. Web. 27 January, 2024.
Tree Trunk Injection
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agriculture14010107

Traditional spraying of pesticides causes significant drift losses, and the residues of pesticides can also affect non-targeted organisms in the environment. Tree injection technology is a precise and targeted pesticide delivery method used in the prevention and treatment of tree and fruit tree pest infestations. It uses the tree’s xylem to transport the injected pesticides throughout the entire plant, reducing pesticide exposure in an open environment.

crop protection tree trunk injection pesticide application

1. Introduction

The tree trunk injection technique is a chemical application technology used to prevent and treat tree diseases [1] which allows pesticides to be administered inside the tree [2]. In traditional orchards and forests, insecticides and fungicides are often applied through methods such as foliar spraying or irrigation [3]. Although these methods are effective at killing pests, they often produce negative effects such as environmental pollution, human exposure, and the risk of accidental ingestion by other organisms [4]. The tree trunk injection technique can inject pesticides directly into target trees, reducing human exposure to the pesticides and the risk of unintended diffusion beyond the intended targets [5]. Therefore, it can be a suitable option for densely populated areas where other pesticide application techniques are not feasible [6].
Foliar spraying technology is the most common method of pest control, but its efficiency is low due to losses caused by spray drift [7][8][9]. For trees with a large crown and dense foliage, spraying is challenging [10]. In addition, some pesticides that are easily deposited in the body are restricted or banned from use. Soil drenching is an alternative to foliar spraying, which applies pesticides to the soil around the tree, allowing the roots to absorb the pesticides for pest control [11]. Although only a small portion of the effective component of the pesticide is absorbed into the tree, the residual portion remains in the soil for a long time and can cause continuous environmental impacts [12].
The technique of injecting pesticides into the trunk of a tree allows for direct delivery to its internal structure without creating any adverse environmental effects [9]. This approach permits the use of a wide range of agents that can be injected and absorbed to attain optimal therapeutic effect with the least amount of phytotoxicity. As the pesticides administered through tree trunk injection circulate internally, they endow long-term resistance against infestations by parasitic organisms that threaten the tree’s health [13]. In comparison to alternative treatment methods, the practice of tree trunk injection affords greater protection over a prolonged duration, thus reducing the frequency of pesticides administration [9].

2. Mechanism of Tree Trunk Injection

2.1. Transportation within Plants

Plants absorb carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic nutrients from the environment, which need to be transported to the required parts for utilization. There is evident division of labor in nutrient absorption between the underground and aboveground parts of terrestrial plants: the root system obtains water and inorganic nutrients from the soil solution, most of which is transported to the aboveground parts for the needs of stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits. In tall trees, the transport distance can reach hundreds of meters. Non-photosynthetic organs such as roots, stems, flowers, fruits, etc., obtain organic substances from photosynthetic organs, primarily the leaves [14]. In addition, various plant organs also influence each other through the transmission of hormones. Upon localized application, artificially synthesized internal absorption of pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, etc.) and growth regulators can spread throughout the plant body, also achieved through the transport system [15].
The conducting tissues within the plant body primarily consist of xylem and phloem, as depicted in Figure 1. Xylem, located in the wood, is composed of numerous dead cells connected by xylem vessels [16]. These vessels possess perforated end walls, forming hollow conduits whose function is to transport water and inorganic salts absorbed from the roots to various parts of the plant [17]. Additionally, the arrangement of xylem vessels also influences the fundamental structure and functional properties of the wood. Phloem, on the other hand, is the tissue responsible for transporting organic substances within the plant’s bark [18]. It is composed of a series of interconnected tubular living cells. Numerous small pores, known as “sieve pores”, are present on the cross-walls between adjacent cells, allowing for the exchange of protoplasm and the formation of a pathway for the transport of assimilates. Research has indicated that the lateral movement of minerals is facilitated through both active transport by thin-walled cells in the xylem and diffusion through cell walls, gradually spreading toward the inner regions of the heartwood.
Figure 1. Cross-sectional and longitudinal diagrams of woody plants’ anatomy.

2.2. Theory of Transpiration-Cohesion-Tension

The theory of transpiration-cohesion-tension is a significant concept in the field of plant physiology, elucidating the mechanism of water transport within plants [19]. This theory was introduced by the Irish scientist H.H. Dixon in the late 19th century. Through experimental research, Dixon discovered that water within the plant is transported through the interplay of transpiration, cohesion, and tension.
Transpiration refers to the process in which water vapor evaporates from the plant and enters the air. After water molecules inside the plant evaporate from the surface of the leaves, they form a chain of water molecules that extends downward into the plant’s roots, thus forming a pathway for water transport [20][21]. The formation of this pathway is the result of the interaction between cohesion and tension.
Cohesion refers to the mutual attraction between water molecules, enabling them to form a continuous chain-like structure. Tension, on the other hand, refers to the pulling force acting on the end of the water molecule chain. This tension arises because the end of the water molecule chain is exposed to air, where water molecules are comparatively sparse. As a result, the water molecule chain experiences a pulling force. This pulling force causes the water molecule chain to extend upwards, ultimately forming a water transport pathway from the roots to the leaves [19][22][23][24].
Understanding the intricacies of water molecule movement can aid in comprehending the absorption and transport mechanisms of pharmaceuticals injected into tree trunks [25]. As the pesticides traverse, they distribute themselves throughout various compartments of the tree. Depending on the specific objective, pesticides can exert their effect on tree leaves, branches, bark, or roots, among other regions. For instance, pesticides used for disease and pest control can form a protective layer on the leaves, thwarting insect invasions. Similarly, nutrient-supplying pharmaceuticals can be absorbed through the tree’s root system, providing the necessary nourishment for the plants.

2.3. Hypothesis of Stress Flow

The Pressure-Flow Hypothesis, also known as the Driven Membrane Theory, is a theory that describes the translocation of organic substances in plant vasculature [26]. This theory was originally proposed by German botanist E. Münch, and it explains that the flow of organic matter in plants is driven by the pressure gradient generated by the plant itself, and that this flow occurs through the vasculature [27].
According to the theory of hydraulic conductivity, plants absorb water and nutrients from underground and convert them into organic matter, which then moves into the vascular bundle through intercellular spaces. The movement of these substances is regulated by two pressures within the plant: root pressure generated at the root and vapor pressure created by transpiration in the aboveground leaves [28][29]. Transpiration in leaves leads to significant water loss, creating a negative pressure region between the leaves and the air. This negative pressure region drives the movement of water within cells towards the leaves, resulting in upward transport of water in the vascular bundle and simultaneous transport of organic matter. In the roots of the plant, water and dissolved inorganic salts enter the plant, and root pressure facilitates their upward transport.

3. The Development Process of Tree Trunk Injection

The practice of introducing pesticides into plants through cutting or puncturing has a long history. Since the 12th century, Arabian horticulturalists have been applying dyes and fragrances onto plant wounds to influence the color and scent of flowers and fruits [30]. In the 15th century, Leonardo da Vinci injected poisonous solutions containing arsenic into tree trunks, rendering the apples toxic [30]. In 1853, Hartig treated symptoms of inorganic compounds deficiency in trees by injecting solutions containing ferrous sulfate and ferric chloride into their trunks [30]. In 1894, American botanist Ivan Shevyrez began experimenting with tree trunk injections for pest control [31]. Since the 20th century, significant advancements have been made in the fields of botany, plant physiology, agriculture, and forestry. In the 1940s, effective treatment for Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma Ulmi Biusman) was discovered through tree trunk injections of propiconazole benzoate solution [6][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. In 2004, Calzarano’s experiment proved that grapevines receiving trunk injection of Cyproconazole were in better nutritional condition and had higher yield and lower mortality rate than those without such injections, demonstrating the beneficial effect of fungicide injection through the trunk on root rot [41]. Injecting pesticides or antibiotics into a tree trunk has proven to be an efficient method for treating diverse tree diseases and preventing the invasion of harmful pests [6][42][43][44][45]. In 2013, Akinsanmi’s experiments showed that biannual application of phosphite during autumn and spring root wash periods effectively controlled tree decline in Australian macadamia trees [46]. In 2018, Dalakouras discovered the potential of RNA interference for crop protection, utilizing tree trunk injections of hairpin RNAs (hpRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) to efficiently absorb and transport RNA molecules throughout the xylem and phloem tissues, triggering RNAi to eliminate pests that chew on the wood or feed on the sap [47].

4. Advantages of Trunk Injection

4.1. Easy and Accessible Operations

The technique of trunk injection not only overcomes the limitations imposed by tree height and affected areas, but also simplifies the control of pests and diseases that are difficult to manage using conventional methods such as foliar application. This includes pests and diseases such as upper canopy insects, root pests, sap-sucking insects protected by wax covers, boring insects, and vascular diseases. Additionally, trunk injection is not constrained by environmental conditions and can still be implemented under continuous rainfall or severe drought without water shortage, making it a feasible chemical control method in such circumstances [48][49].

4.2. High Pesticides Utilization Rate and Prolonged Efficacy

Due to the height of the trees themselves, traditional liquid spraying methods are insufficient in reaching the topmost ends of taller trees. This leads to significant wastage of the pesticidal solution. Furthermore, such waste can infiltrate the soil and rivers through rainfall, resulting in environmental pollution. Insufficient absorption of the pesticides by the trees also diminishes its effectiveness in controlling diseases and pests. On the contrary, tree trunk injection technology allows for precise control over the amount of pesticides entering the tree’s system [9]. This greatly enhances the efficiency of pesticides usage and avoids the influence of environmental factors such as rainfall and sunlight [50][51], thus extending the efficacy period. With its highly effective prevention and treatment results, this technique fundamentally improves the efficiency of pesticides usage while also preventing environmental pollution [52]. In the control of pear psylla, the therapeutic effect of injecting azadirachtin and abamectin into the trunk is superior to that of spraying insecticides on the leaves [53]. Trees that were treated with trunk injection since the first season still showed a moderate level of control effectiveness in the second season [53].

4.3. Wide Range

Due to the internal distribution of the liquid within the trees, the tree injection method effectively eliminates highly concealed pests [8]. In contrast, conventional external spraying techniques fail to directly address pests with strong concealment, resulting in significantly lower effectiveness in preventing and treating tree diseases and pests [54]. For instance, data show that tree injection techniques achieve a control rate of over 95% for the citrus long-horned beetle, with a larval mortality rate exceeding 90%, demonstrating remarkable efficacy [55][56].

4.4. Reducing the Contamination of Pesticides

Traditional pesticide spraying techniques can lead to a significant residue of chemicals on the surface of trees, including trunks, leaves, and fruits. This, in turn, can result in substantial environmental contamination as the excess chemicals are washed away by rainwater and find their way into rivers and soil, posing a serious threat to both the environment and human health [8][57][58]. Moreover, the spraying techniques inevitably have adverse effects on the natural predators of pests, with the potential to even eliminate these beneficial organisms [59], thereby compromising the effectiveness of pest control efforts. In contrast, tree trunk injection methods do not generate pesticide pollution in the ecological environment. Instead, they contribute to the protection of non-target organisms and the personal safety of applicators, ensuring that the application of chemically potent pest control substances remains clean [60][61]. This approach fulfills the requirements of environmental conservation, ecological preservation, and personal safety.

References

  1. Nan, Y.L.; Zhang, H.C.; Zheng, J.Q.; Yang, K.Q.; Ge, Y.F. Low-volume precision spray for plant pest control using profile variable rate spraying and ultrasonic detection. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1042769.
  2. Archer, L.; Crane, J.H.; Albrecht, U. Trunk Injection as a Tool to Deliver Plant Protection Materials—An Overview of Basic Principles and Practical Considerations. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 552.
  3. Bunescu, H.; Oltean, I.; Mihai, G.; Bodis, I.; Dinuta, A. Alternative pest control strategies in orchard ecosystems. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Prospects of the Agriculture of the 3rd Millenium Science, Cluj Napoca, Romania, 6–7 October 2005; p. 406.
  4. Lee, H.D.; Ihm, Y.B.; Kwon, H.Y.; Kim, J.B.; Kyung, K.S.; Kim, C.S.; Oh, B.Y.; Im, G.J.; Kim, J.E. Dissipation pattern of pesticide residues in/on different varieties of lettuce applied with foliar spraying under greenhouse condition. Korean J. Pestic. Sci. 2005, 9, 354–358.
  5. Acimovic, S.G.; Zeng, Q.; McGhee, G.C.; Sundin, G.W.; Wise, J.C. Control of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) on apple trees with trunk-injected plant resistance inducers and antibiotics and assessment of induction of pathogenesis-related protein genes. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 16.
  6. Li, M.; Nangong, Z.Y. Precision trunk injection technology for treatment of huanglongbing (HLB)-affected citrus trees—A review. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2022, 129, 15–34.
  7. Zhang, P.Y.; Branham, B.E. Measurement of foliar spray retention on creeping bentgrass. Weed Technol. 2019, 33, 827–832.
  8. Coslor, C.C. Refining Trunk Injection Strategies for Control of Foliar Insect Pests and Disease in Michigan Apple Orchards. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2017.
  9. Wheeler, C.E. Control of Pear Psylla in Pears and Black Stem Borer in Apples with Trunk Injection. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2020.
  10. Afreh-Nuamah, K. Spray Distribution in a Tree Crop. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College London (United Kingdom), London, UK, 1987.
  11. Ku, Y.G.; Woolley, D.J.; Ahn, S.J.; Lee, J.H. Affecting Asparagus officinalis Shoot and Root Growth Characteristics with CPPU Foliar Sprays and Soil Drench. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2010, 28, 167–171.
  12. Resende-Silva, G.A.; Joseph, D.A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Cutler, G.C. Impact of Imidacloprid Soil Drenching on Survival, Longevity, and Reproduction of the Zoophytophagous Predator Podisus maculiventris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Asopinae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 108–114.
  13. McLeod, A.; Masikane, S.L.; Novela, P.; Ma, J.; Mohale, P.; Nyoni, M.; Stander, M.; Wessels, J.P.B.; Pieterse, P. Quantification of root phosphite concentrations for evaluating the potential of foliar phosphonate sprays for the management of avocado root rot. Crop Prot. 2018, 103, 87–97.
  14. Calvin, M. Mechanism of photosynthesis in green plants. Rend. -Ist. Super. Sanita 1956, 19, 247–264.
  15. Berger, C.; Laurent, F. Trunk injection of plant protection products to protect trees from pests and diseases. Crop Prot. 2019, 124, 104831.
  16. Martínez-Vilalta, J.; Mencuccini, M.; Alvarez, X.; Camacho, J.; Loepfe, L.; Piñol, J. Spatial Distribution and Packing of Xylem Conduits. Am. J. Bot. 2012, 99, 1189–1196.
  17. Tanis, S.R.; Cregg, B.M.; Mota-Sanchez, D.; McCullough, D.G.; Poland, T.M. Spatial and temporal distribution of trunk-injected 14C-imidacloprid in Fraxinus trees. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 529–536.
  18. Carlquist, S. Interxylary phloem: Diversity and functions. Brittonia 2013, 65, 477–495.
  19. Bentrup, F.W. Water ascent in trees and lianas: The cohesion-tension theory revisited in the wake of Otto Renner. Protoplasma 2017, 254, 627–633.
  20. David, T.S.; Ferreira, M.I.; David, J.S.; Pereira, J.S. Transpiration from a mature Eucalyptus globulus plantation in Portugal during a spring-summer period of progressively higher water deficit. Oecologia 1997, 110, 153–159.
  21. Perron, N.; Baltzer, J.L.; Sonnentag, O. Spatial and temporal variation in forest transpiration across a forested boreal peatland complex. Hydrol. Process. 2023, 37, e14815.
  22. Angeles, G.; Bond, B.; Boyer, J.S.; Brodribb, T.; Brooks, J.R.; Burns, M.J.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Clearwater, M.; Cochard, H.; Comstock, J.; et al. The Cohesion-Tension theory. New Phytol. 2004, 163, 451–452.
  23. Greulach, V.A. A Proposed New Name for the Cohesion Theory of Water Ascent in Plants. Science 1951, 114, 675.
  24. Steudle, E. The cohesion-tension mechanism and the acquisition of water by plant roots. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 2001, 52, 847–875.
  25. Liu, S.; Li, G.W.; IEEE. Research on Water Transport Pattern and Branch-Borer Control Efficiency of Qurcus Mongolica. In Proceedings of the World Automation Congress (WAC), Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, 24–28 June 2012.
  26. Yang, C.; Fan, F.H.; Xu, G.; Ding, G.J. Development, differentiation, and material distribution of secondary phloem in Pinus massoniana. J. For. Res. 2023, 34, 1915–1926.
  27. Turgeon, R. The Puzzle of Phloem Pressure. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 578–581.
  28. Pickard, W.F. The riddle of root pressure. II. Root exudation at extreme osmolalities. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 135–141.
  29. Koehler, T.; Wankmüller, F.J.P.; Sadok, W.; Carminati, A. Transpiration response to soil drying versus increasing vapor pressure deficit in crops: Physical and physiological mechanisms and key plant traits. J. Exp. Bot. 2023, 74, 4789–4807.
  30. Roach, W.A. Plant Injection as a Physiological Method. Ann. Bot. 1939, 3, 155–277.
  31. Rumbold, C. The Injection of Chemicals into Chestnut Trees. Am. J. Bot. 1920, 7, 1–20.
  32. Zhang, W.J.; Wu, X.Q.; Ye, J.R.; Li, C.Q.; Hu, L.J.; Rui, L.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, X.F.; Wang, L. Toxicity of an Emamectin Benzoate Microemulsion against Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and Its Effect on the Prevention of Pine Wilt Disease. Forests 2023, 14, 1476.
  33. Burkhard, R.; Binz, H.; Roux, C.A.; Brunner, M.; Ruesch, O.; Wyss, P. Environmental fate of emamectin benzoate after tree micro injection of horse chestnut trees. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 34, 297–302.
  34. Guo, Y.J.; Ma, J.Y.; Sun, Y.Z.; Carballar-Lejarazu, R.; Weng, M.Q.; Shi, W.C.; Wu, J.Q.; Hu, X.; Wang, R.; Zhang, F.P.; et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of fluopyram trunk-injection in Pinus massoniana and its efficacy against pine wilt disease. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 2230–2238.
  35. Haugen, L.; Stennes, M. Fungicide injection to control Dutch elm disease: Understanding the options. Plant Diagn. Q. 1999, 20, 29–38.
  36. Karnosky, D.F. Dutch elm disease: A review of the history, environmental implications, control, and research needs. Environ. Conserv. 1979, 6, 311–322.
  37. Perry, T.O.; Santamour, F.S.; Stipes, R.J.; Shear, T.; Shigo, A.L. Exploring Alternatives to Tree Injection. J. Arboric. 1991, 17, 217–226.
  38. Li, X.; Jin, D.; Jin, X.; Nam-chang, N.; Li, D. Selection of Trunk Injection Pesticides for Preventive of Pine Wilt Disease, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus on Japanese Black Pine (Pinus thunbergii). Korean J. Pestic. Sci. 2009, 13, 267–274.
  39. Shin, W.S.; Jung, Y.H.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, C.M.; Lee, C.J.; Kim, D.S.; Mun, I.S.; Lee, D.W. Development of Effective Screening Method for Efficacy Test of Trunk Injection Agents Against Pine Wood Nematode, Bersaphelenchus xylophilus in Japanese Black Pine, Pinus thunbergii. Korean J. Pestic. Sci. 2015, 19, 440–449.
  40. Ni, A.S.; Yang, D.; Cheng, H.; Ye, J.R. Preliminary Study on Early Diagnosis and Rehabilitation Treatment of Pine Wood Nematode Disease Based on Partial Symptoms. Forests 2023, 14, 657.
  41. Calzarano, F.; Di Marco, S.; Cesari, A. Benefit of fungicide treatment after trunk renewal of vines with different types of esca necrosis. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2004, 43, 116–124.
  42. Kiss, M.; Soros, C.; Gutermuth, A.; Ittzes, A.; Szabo, A. Avermectin Trunk Injections: A Promising Approach for Managing the Walnut Husk Fly (Rhagoletis completa). Horticulturae 2023, 9, 655.
  43. Hu, J.H.; Wang, N.A. Evaluation of the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Oxytetracycline and Its Control Effect Against Citrus Huanglongbing via Trunk Injection. Phytopathology 2016, 106, 1495–1503.
  44. Mota-Sanchez, D.; Cregg, B.M.; McCullough, D.G.; Poland, T.M.; Hollingworth, R.M. Distribution of trunk-injected 14C-imidacloprid in ash trees and effects on emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) adults. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 655–661.
  45. Mashal, M.M.; Obeidat, B.F. The efficacy assessment of emamectin benzoate using micro injection system to control red palm weevil. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01833.
  46. Akinsanmi, O.A.; Drenth, A. Phosphite and metalaxyl rejuvenate macadamia trees in decline caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Crop Prot. 2013, 53, 29–36.
  47. Dalakouras, A.; Jarausch, W.; Buchholz, G.; Bassler, A.; Braun, M.; Manthey, T.; Krczal, G.; Wassenegger, M. Delivery of Hairpin RNAs and Small RNAs Into Woody and Herbaceous Plants by Trunk Injection and Petiole Absorption. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1253.
  48. Archer, L.; Albrecht, U. Evaluation of Trunk Injection Techniques for Systemic Delivery of Huanglongbing Therapies in Citrus. Hortscience 2023, 58, 768–778.
  49. Cevenini, L.; Minelli, A. Translocation of Active Ingredient Using Three Trunk Injection Methods. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Landscape and Urban Horticulture, Bologna, Italy, 9–13 June 2009; pp. 409–412.
  50. Choi, H.S.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, H.J.; Choi, K.J.; Lee, Y. Variation of Soil and Leaf in a ‘Wonhwang’ Pear Orchard Appled by Selenium Solution. Korea J. Org. Agric. 2010, 18, 541–548.
  51. Huang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Li, J.; Shi, X.H. Evaluation of the effectieness of insecticide trunk injections for control of Latoia lepida (Cramer) in the sweet olive tree Osmanthus fragrans. Peerj 2016, 4, e2480.
  52. Li, J.Y.; Kolbasov, V.G.; Pang, Z.Q.; Duan, S.; Lee, D.; Huang, Y.X.; Xu, J.; Teper, D.; Lamichhane, T.; Wang, N.A. Evaluation of the control effect of SAR inducers against citrus Huanglongbing applied by foliar spray, soil drench or trunk injection. Phytopathol. Res. 2021, 3, 2.
  53. Wheeler, C.E.; Vandervoort, C.; Wise, J.C. Organic Control of Pear Psylla in Pear with Trunk Injection. Insects 2020, 11, 650.
  54. Byeongjin, C.; Kim, M.-Y.; Kab, K.J.; Kim, C.-E.; Lee, K.J. Influence of the Injection Wound Size and the Crown Condition on the Trunk-injection Efficiency in Zelkova Trees. J. Agric. Life Sci. 2019, 53, 73–84.
  55. Wang, X.Y.; Zheng, X.L.; Lu, W. The complete mitochondrial genome of an Asian longicorn beetle Glenea cantor (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Lamiinae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B-Resour. 2019, 4, 2906–2907.
  56. Yamanobe, T.; Hosoda, H. High survival rates for the longicorn beetle, Apriona japonica (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) Thomson in beech trees (Fagus crenata Blume) planted in lowlands. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2002, 46, 256–258.
  57. Byrne, F.J.; Urena, A.A.; Robinson, L.J.; Krieger, R.I.; Doccola, J.; Morse, J.G. Evaluation of neonicotinoid, organophosphate and avermectin trunk injections for the management of avocado thrips in California avocado groves. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 811–817.
  58. Coslor, C.C.; Sundin, G.W.; Wise, J.C. The efficacy of trunk injections of emamectin benzoate and phosphorous acid for control of obliquebanded leafroller and apple scab on semi-dwarf apple. Crop Prot. 2019, 118, 44–49.
  59. Ouyang, X.H.; Fan, Q.B.; Chen, A.L.; Huang, J.H. Effects of trunk injection with emamectin benzoate on arthropod diversity. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023, 79, 935–946.
  60. Lee, S.M.; Kim, D.S.; Kim, C.S.; Cho, K.S.; Choo, H.Y.; Lee, D.W. Persistence and Distribution of Trunk-Injected Abamectin in Pinus thunbergii and Pinus koraiensis Tissues. Korean J. Pestic. Sci. 2009, 13, 190–196.
  61. Sunamura, E.; Tamura, S.; Taki, H.; Buczkowski, G.; Shoda-Kagaya, E. Effects of neonicotinoid insecticide trunk injections on non-target arboreal ants, potential biological control agents for invasive longhorn beetle Aromia bungii on cherry trees. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2023, 58, 401–407.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Forestry
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Qingqing Shang
,
Hongcai Lu
,
Mengdi Yang
,
Yujie Wu
,
Qing Chen
View Times: 208
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback