I have discovered that Elder species (Sambucus spp.)shrubs have been linked to a natural prevention for DED (Dutch Elm Disease).

American (S. canadensis), Red (S. Racemosa) and the Golden Plume (S. nigra 'Aurea') all have a natural purgative (mild cyanide toxin) within their roots and vascular system that repel both species of elm bark beetle carriers as well as the deadly DED fungus itself!

When Elders are established (about 7 years after transplanting) within the root zone of existing American Elms, it is believed that the toxin from the Elder is absorbed by Elm trees via osmosis at the root hairs, or that the toxin stimulates an acquired resistance within the Elm tree itself.

Whatever the reason, this phenomena has actually been proven in Quebec, recorded in his book titled A Garden of Birds, by Andre P. Dion [Montreal] Brimar c. 1988, 191p. translation by Jane Brierley.

Most importantly, the Elms that were already infected with DED were also saved and are completely free of DED after subsequent Elder transplanting!

Any comments out there?

Should we be planting Elders when we plant new Elms? Should we encourage supplemental under-planting of Elders where Elms exist in streets, parks, private residences and natural areas, etc.?

What do we have to lose? Perhaps our elm trees?

DgM

Reply to post by Dave G Meadows, on April 18, 2002 at 21:17:46:



Auburn University has been looking into and released some fantastic early work characterizing external plant colonization profiles for specific biocontrol agents like endophytic bacteria. Common populations associated with host that can translocate to desired effect. Years ago, simple crop rotation kept pathogens targeting specific hosts from becoming virulent - but advocated monoculture (economy driven) pretty much killed that common sense approach, instead the development of (hopefully but never attained) target specific pesticides and now our problems from that are obvious.

Here we noticed increases in growth of sassafras below dripline of oaks roughly indicated less mortality in general to forest stands of proximity oaks to diseased specimens. Assays were never completed because a noted "expert" suggested I change my course - this shows the need for less chemical company research funding and more true research by land grant institutions.

I suggest you go ahead and do it - plant those suckers and see what happens. Good work there, I'm glad you've been digging around for alternative possibilities.

Reply to post by Reed, on April 18, 2002 at 21:17:46:

Reed:

Thanks for the support on this one!

I guess that's why Novatris believes it wrote the book on sustainability.

Think of that, when considering a micro-injection of ENGAGE for DED prevention!

Corporations are paying for MBA degrees these days. All in the name of market research. Only problem with this education plan, is that companies choose the research topics.

Thanks,
DgM

Reply to post by DgM, on April 26, 2002 at 13:05:54:

Yeah, Novartis. Had plenty of experience watching them complicate oak wilt from original infection centers to the epidemic we have today. Many of the Texas Oak Wilt Suppression Project (state) employees went-on to work for Rainbow Tree Care (twin cities). It's a funny little secret that Rainbow is owned by Novartis, which is wholly owned by Ciba, yet no connection can be traced on Wall Street. I knew when our state advocated only ALAMO, and then made it a criminal offense to treat wilt with any other formula that these guys would be rewarded someday with a private corporation paycheck. Too bad all that research and money hasn't made one single dent in the virulence and destruction wilt has brought.
When America asked for patriotism resulting from the 9/11 attacks, we the people came forth and gave but America's big corporations went offshore. Getting tired of being puppeted by the Fortune 500.

There ARE alternatives to these disease events. It's just difficult getting the word out.