2004_volume11_issue1

Tree Care Advisor Newsletter

Inside This Issue:

American Elm By Mark Stennes

1

Quick Hits / Volunteer Opps By Dave Hanson

2

Putting Down Roots: By Cliff Johnson

3

The Elms Are Back

By Chad Giblin and Jeff Gilman

8

TCAs: 10 Years Old By Dave Hanson

10

Ulmaceae Family in Minnesota By Dave Hanson

20

Shade Tree Short Course Opportunity /Volunteer Hour Awards By Dave Hanson

22

Contacts

And The Trivia Answer

24

Volume 11 Number 1 Dave Hanson and Gary Johnson, Managing Editors

http://

www.mntca.org

INTRODUCTION The genus Ulmus, meaning elm, con-tains many different species that occupy a wide variety of sites throughout the Northern Hemi-sphere. Elms have

been planted and used widely in Europe and Asia for thousands of years. Most elms have natural beauty, as well as func-

tional properties that make them especially suit-able for domestic human uses. They have a very rich 5000-year association with human culture. In addition to fuel, a wide array of wood products, and fod-der for cattle, they have been used for windbreaks, shelterbelts, and shade. Throughout history, indi-vidual trees have served as landmarks affiliated with

specific historical events, giving the events a living presence. In terms of its affiliation with and effects on human culture, the elm ranks high on a list that includes olive, oak and ap-ple. From an ecological point of view, the elms' contribution to biodiver-sity and the flow of energy in north temperate terres-trial eco-systems

Welcome to Elm Street!

Elms: Indications are good that they’re back. This issue contains an article by

Mark Stennes on the return of the “American” elm. Jeff Gilman and Chad Giblin,

University of Minnesota - TRĒ Nursery, chime in with comments on the on-going

Dutch Elm Disease (DED) resistant elm trials on the Saint Paul Campus. Then I’ll

provide some comments on Ulmus spp. found as natives throughout Minnesota.

You’ll also find a little background on the TCA program in the form of a ten year

summary and an invite to the Shade Tree Short Course with TCA discounts…

Trivia corner:

However, first things first, a little trivia courtesy of Gail Soens, Dakota County

TCA. I had to do some research of my own to provide Gail with the answer.

You’ll find it on the last page of this newsletter. Here is the question: The birch

family (Betulaceae) contains six genera comprised of roughly 120 species, five of

these genera are native to the US. Can you name all 5? Now, name the sixth gen-

era restricted in range to Eastern Asia. Don’t Cheat! Good luck!

Good News For the American Elm

Continued Page 5

1933 -Transplanting an Ameri-

can Elm at Penn State in front of

Old Main. Photo From Penn

State:

http://lorax.opp.psu.edu/archive/

OldMainElms.htm

Quick Hits

A “Contact Tree”: Request from TCAAG

The TCA Advisory Group is looking to develop a communication network for Tree Care Advisors. Since we don't have monthly meetings, this network would be used to pass along information important to TCAs between newsletters and update meetings. I would like one TCA from each county (or two from counties with LOTS of active TCAs) that has active TCAs to agree to be the main contact person for that county. If the TCAAG has information or announcements, we would contact (by phone or e-mail) that volunteer from each county and ask them to contact (by phone or e-mail) the other TCAs in their county. We think this would be a good way to help keep TCAs connected to each other and make sure that no one misses out on upcoming events or opportunities (like the 2/14 up-date session/Tree Identification Workshop!!) If you would like to be the contact for your county, please e-mail or call me directly at [email protected] 651-464-9829 with your name, phone, e-mail, and county of residence. Thanks everyone - I look forward to seeing you on Februay 14! Laurie Drolson, Washington County TCA

The TCAAG is looking for members. Typically, with new members come new ideas and new energy. Con-

sider helping out the TCA program in this capacity… February 14th, they will pitch some of their ideas.

Plan on Attending the Shade Tree Short Course - March 23rd and 24th.

Look for TCA discount information on page 22 of this newsletter.

Have You submitted your TCA hours for 2003? Please, send them in, in reality it is never too late!

See how the hours are used in the TCA Ten Year Summary beginning on page 10 - reporting TCA

volunteer hours to the Minnesota DNR and the United States Forest Service bolsters the TCA program and

demonstrates that TCAs are out there making a difference!

WWW.MNTCA.ORG

Have you been to this website? Is there anything the TCAs need out there?

Remember this website is for TCAs !

Putting Down Roots - A column in the Chaska Herald.

Cliff Johnson

Carver / Scott

Master Gardener

Right now is a good time to

prune fruit trees

It happens every time I

teach a class on pruning.

When I get to the part

about when to prune, some-

one in the audience quips,

“Why didn’t you tell me

that six (or 3 or 9) months

ago, when it was the recom-

mended time to prune?”

Well, I’m telling you now,

this is a very good time to

prune apple trees.

It’s also a good time to prune

most hardwoods -- this pe-

riod of late winter,

before spring bud-break,

when daytime temperatures

are comfortable and the

absence of leaves allows you

to view the tree’s “skeleton.”

I spent several hours in

mid-February doing annual

pruning maintenance on

my eight apple and crabapple

trees that will help them

produce more fruit and

mature with a strong and

symmetrical limb and branch

structure.

There is a paradox in-

volved in pruning apple trees.

Apple trees need

pruning to prevent excessive

and misdirected branch

growth but at the same time,

pruning stimulates new

growth, which increases the

need for annual pruning.

It is the habit of apple

trees to grow sucker

branches and water sprouts

in abundance, partly in re-

sponse to pruning. You can

recognize water sprouts

easily this time of year be-

cause they grow straight up

in the air, sometimes

adding as much as six feet of

growth in a season. Water

sprouts and sucker

branches should be removed

every year.

One of the primary objec-

tives of pruning fruit trees is

to keep the tree

canopy open so air can circu-

late and sunshine can pene-

trate all major limb

sections to help ripen fruit.

Many apple varieties have

a bad habit of growing

branches back towards

the center of the tree that

cross each other, causing

wounds where branches rub

together and a dense center

that prohibits air and light to

penetrate the

tree’s center.

Ideally, pruning should

begin when the tree is very

young and continue

each year so the tree can be

shaped in such a way that it

grows strong and

allows penetration of air and

light.

Pruning apple trees is

complicated by the fact that

not all apple

varieties have similar growth

habits. My HaralRed tree has

a more undesirable

branching pattern than my

two Honey Crisp trees. I

have several Red Splendor

crabapple trees that would --

if I didn’t intervene with an-

nual pruning -- become a

tangled mass of water

sprouts and criss-crossing

branches.

In my Pruning Simplified

book, author Lewis Hill

writes that fruit trees

are usually trained in one of

three forms: central leader,

modified leader, or

open center.

Above: A spur shoot and bud on

an apple tree branch.

Below: Water sprouts near the

base of a Norway maple

Putting Down Roots...

Trees that bear heavy

crops of large fruit, including

apples and pears,

are usually best pruned to

grow with a central leader,

or trunk, at least in

their younger days, Hill says.

The modified leader

method is initially the same

as the central leader

method, but eventually you

let the central trunk branch

off to form several

tops, according to Hill.

The open center method

allows maximum light to

penetrate the shady

interior but is not recom-

mended for apples, he says,

because it produces a tree

with

weaker branches.

The key to pruning apple

trees, Hill writes, is to think

sunshine and

light penetration. Because of

its tight branch structure,

only about 30% of an

unpruned tree gets sufficient

light to produce abundant

fruit, and another 40%

of the tree gets only a mar-

ginal amount of light, accord-

ing to Hill.

As mentioned earlier, late-

winter pruning does stimu-

late some re-growth

of branches to replace lost

wood. A general pruning rule

is to never remove

more than a third of a tree’s

branches in any one year. In

the case of apples, a

better rule, based on my ex-

perience, is to limit pruning

to 10% of a tree’s

branches.

Several years ago, a spring

storm caused a large oak

limb to fall on one

of my crabapple trees, de-

stroying about half the crab-

apple tree’s branches.

That tree has been producing

hundreds of new sprouts and

suckers ever since to

compensate for the branch

loss that occurred in the

storm.

I’ve been asked occasion-

ally about what to do with

gnarly, old, overgrown

and under-pruned apple

trees. There is no simple

answer here. I would ask,

what is the objective? To

grow fruit? Provide shade?

Preserve a memory?

Sometimes it may be best to

remove the tree and start

over with a healthy young

transplant of one of the tasty

new varieties from the Uni-

versity of Minnesota such

as Honey Crisp or Zestar.

For a Pruning Reference, Please refer to: United

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-

vice.

How to Prune Trees

This pamphlet is available on the web at: http://

www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_prune/

prun001.htm

Crossing, rubbing branches

should be removed in any prun-

ing operation. These happen to

be on Hackberry.

Keep in mind that pruning can

affect flowering and fruit produc-

tion.

Crabapples on the U of M campus.

Good news for American Elm (continued from page 1)

can be fairly described as significant. The focus of the following conversation, however, is on a single North American member of the genus that we know af-fectionately as American elm (Ulmus Americana). Perhaps the American elm's most en-dearing feature is the unique vase-shaped habit of growth that is the stuff of leg-end. Standing alone in the open, or in arching cathedral rows, American elm has no peer. Complementing its aes-thetic attractiveness, however, is a long list of characteristics that are highly de-sirable from utilitarian points of view. The tree can deal with urban stresses at least as well as any other. It can survive and thrive on a wide variety of sites and soils. What other tree can more than survive on narrow boulevard strips, let alone turn up sidewalks, curbs and streets while developing such magnifi-cent proportions? There is no other tree that can so ably tolerate low oxygen lev-els in soil that arise from various insults, including compaction and impervious surfaces. It can tolerate flooding, drought, salt and a wide range of soil pH. Its natural geographic range is from Sas-katchewan to Nova Scotia to Florida to Texas, and to all points in between. Av-erage annual rainfall across its natural range varies between 15 and 60 inches per year. When combined with its extraordinary ability to survive construction activity insults and grade changes, the preceding collection of valuable features helps ex-plain why the American elm engenders such passionate admiration. DUTCH ELM DISEASE As might be expected when desirable attributes line up so well in a single tree, American elm was accordingly overused. Even when other species would likely

have been more suitable for a given site, American elm would surely work to eve-ryone's satisfaction, a fact that we con-tinue to regret. With American elm lined up shoulder to shoulder along boulevards & parkways, and prominently featured in front and back yards throughout its natural range, the risk of importing a particularly de-structive pest or pathogen would seem obvious. While it is clear enough to us now how inevitable it was, we were not prepared to deal with an imported vas-cular pathogen like Ophiostoma ulmi, the fungus that causes Dutch elm disease (DED). Since it was first identified in North America in 1930, the fungus has killed millions of invaluable shade trees. The cost of removing dead and diseased trees alone is in the $billions, to say nothing of the diminution in the value of the affected urban forests and the uni-maginable heartache suffered by those who lost their trees. We now know that aggressive management by sanitation (finding and promptly removing diseased trees) is cost effective and will substan-tially reduce loss rates for municipalities with a large population of suscep-tible elm trees. Minneapolis, for example, still has at least 90,000 mature American elm trees on public and private property throughout the city. We also have preventive and therapeutic treatments whose effectiveness is well established. Among the more unfortunate long-term results of DED, however, is the fact that American elm has been completely re-moved from our list of choices when we have a space for a new tree. As a spe-cies, the tree is too susceptible; the risk of DED is just too great. BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE

Transplanting an American Elm

at Penn State in front of Old

Main. 1933...

Photo - Penn State Archives:

http://lorax.opp.psu.edu/archive/

OldMainElms.htm

That Penn State Elm in 2002 at

approximately 100 years of age.

Penn State: http://

lorax.opp.psu.edu/homepage.asp


Breeding research with Asian and European elms at various arboreta and academic institutions in Europe and America has resulted in many named cultivars of elm that sub-stantially resist DED. There is a long list of culti-vars with varying levels of resistance to DED, elm leaf beetle and elm yel-lows, but none of them are meaningfully compara-ble to American elm. A big component of the prob-lem of breeding DED re-sistance into American elm is the fact that the species is the only member of the elm genus that is tetraploid, meaning that it has four sets of genes in-stead of two. It will not cross with the diploid (two sets of genes) species of elm that have shown DED resistance. The good news is that all elms do have defenses, and even in American elm they work more often than they do not. But when they are insufficient, the tree dies. Mechanisms of defense can be divided into two broad categories. There are physical fea-tures that can help the plant impede invasion by the pathogen; specifically in the case of DED are springwood vessel diame-ter, length and grouping. As a general rule, Ameri-can elm has large, long,

tightly grouped spring-wood vessels, a factor contributing to its general susceptibility. There are also reactive mecha-nisms that the plant can use. One of them is vessel occlusion in response to infection. Another is the plant's ability to wall off the infection and enclose it in new wood. There are also fungitoxic chemicals (phytoalexins) that the plant can produce in re-sponse to infection and use defensively against the pathogen. As a general rule, dependable combina-tions of defensive mecha-nisms occur very infre-quently in American elm. In fact, our collective ex-periences with DED have led us to believe that they may never occur. However, dogged deter-mination on the part of plant geneticists and plant pathologists, particularly at the U.S. National Arbore-tum, has shown that a sig-nificant level of tolerance does exist in American elm, albeit very infre-quently. By screening cer-tain diploid non-American elm cultivars that have proven resistance to DED with individual American elm trees that seemed to have an unusual ability to survive high disease pres-sure in the wild, and chal-lenging them with an un-naturally severe form of

inoculation, Dr. Alden M. (Denny) Townsend found and was able to show that a few individuals do in fact have substantial tolerance for DED. Semantically, tol-erance implies that the plant can become infected, and even show sympto-matic wilting, but then re-cover without meaningful long-term damage. Statisti-cal analysis of his data showed that over a seven-year period, cultivar or selection was a highly sig-nificant source of variation for crown dieback and survival. While natural tol-erance may occur in less than one in 100,000 indi-viduals, once tolerance is identified in any given indi-vidual it can be given a name and cloned an unlim-ited number of times. DISEASE TOLERANT CULTIVARS OF AMERICAN ELM ‘Valley Forge’ & ‘New Har-mony’ Neither of these clones had names when Dr. Townsend first inoculated a large group of them in May of 1992. It is beyond the scope of this discus-sion to detail his research, but he used a very severe form of inoculation, and his statistical bases were covered. The names were applied by the time he re-ported the long-term re-sults of the study in June 2001. Ninety-six percent

Minnesota State Fair Grounds -

American Elm with early DED

symptoms.

June: Early sign of DED, wilted watersprouts. August: Same tree marked for removal.


of the ‘Valley Forge’ sur-vived after seven years, and 86% of the ‘New Har-mony’ survived. I have a ’Valley Forge’ that started as a rooted cutting in 2000. The growth rate is phenomenal; it has taken off like a scalded dog. Training pruning is clearly very important in the early years to maintain struc-tural discipline, but it is a true American elm, and appears to be hardy here. I have no personal experi-ence with ‘New Harmony,’ and while it is clearly quite tolerant of Dutch elm dis-ease, it has been charac-terized as somewhat “shrubbier” than ‘Valley Forge’ or ‘Princeton.’ Nei-ther clone is copyright protected, so there is no restriction on production from rooted cuttings. ‘Princeton’ The American elm cultivar ‘Princeton’ was released in the early 1920’s by Prince-ton Nurseries of New Jer-sey, about ten years be-fore the arrival of the Dutch elm disease patho-gen. It was selected be-cause of its superlative dis-play of the horticultural features that we like best in American elm, and be-cause it showed the great-est tolerance for many of the other important elm maladies of the day. It was included in Dr. Town-send’s study, and per-

formed as well as ‘Valley Forge.’ ‘Princeton’ is ap-parently not copyright protected. To learn more of the story, and maybe get one for yourself, visit the website: http://www:riveredgefarms.com. ‘American Liberty’ multi-clone This cultivar is actually a combination of 6 cultivars first released by the late Dr. E. B. Smalley of the University of Wisconsin. One of the six was used in Dr. Townsend’s study, but performed very poorly. Also, the multiclone is copyright protected, and is only available through the Elm Research Institute in New Hampshire. St. Croix There is a large and beau-tiful, type-specimen American elm growing in the St. Croix river valley near Afton, Minnesota. The tree is 72 inches in diameter, about 75 feet tall, and has a crown spread of over 100 feet. It is not just surviving, but thriving in spite of 30 years of exposure to a crown fire of DED. Ameri-can elm is not just an in-digenous component of the natural plant commu-nity there, it is an aggres-sive one. Trees all around it, most of them grown up since their parents were killed, are still dying and

breeding bark beetles that certainly still feed in the crown of this tree. The statistical probability of a lucky “escape” in this case is prohibitive. There is a real possibility that this individual is substantially tolerant to DED, and Dr. Townsend has agreed to include it in new trials. Rooted cuttings are being created at the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Minnesota right now. They may be ready to ship by spring 2004. Stay tuned. The bottom line here is that there are now at least three cultivars of Ameri-can elm that substantially tolerate DED, and are available if we bother to ask. There is the rub. Lo-cal wholesale nurseries will not grow them, and local nursery outlets will not provide them, if we do not insist on them. If you want one, ask for it, and then leave if they cannot provide it. Seeing a sale walk out the door is very good incentive. If you are responsible for letting landscape contracts, spec-ify and insist on them. There are thousands of good sites available for disease tolerant American elm. We are in no danger of having too many of them.

Loss of elms to DED is still a significant issue. Minnesota State Fair Grounds

But, the hope is out there with

the new disease resistant Elms.


Selected references: Campanella, Thomas J. 2003. Republic of shade: New England and the American elm. Yale University Press. New Haven and London. Dunn, Christopher P. (ed.). 2000. The Elms: Breeding, Conservation, and Disease Management. Klu-wer Academic Publishers. Boston. USA. Sticklen, Mariam B., and Sherald, James L. (eds). 1993. Dutch elm disease research: Cellular and Mo-lecular Approaches. Springer-Verlag. New York. USA. Townsend, A.M., Bentz, S.E. and Johnson, G.R. 1995. Variation in Response of Selected American Elm Clones to Ophiostoma ulmi. J. Environ. Hort. 13(3):126-128 Townsend., A.M. & Douglass, L.W. 2001. Variation among American Elm Clones in Long-term Die-back, Growth, and Survival following Ophiostoma Inoculation. J. Environ. Hort. 19(2):100-103. Mark Stennes, Top Notch Treecare 15 Sep 03

The Elms are Back!

By Chad Giblin and Jeff Gillman University of Minnesota

TRE Nursery Project After a good response from people interested in hearing more about the elm evalua-

tion project here at the University of Minnesota’s TRE nursery, we decided to provide a little bit more in depth information that we have gathered from these studies. We are now in our fourth full season of evaluating Dutch Elm Disease resistant elms. This is a cooperative project between the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the University of Minnesota. We have been able to take a close look at eighteen unique cultivars. Currently we collect data on growth (caliper and new growth), winter injury, disease susceptibility, insect damage, suscepti-bility to storm breakage due to poor branch attachment, as well as general observations on form and overall appearance.

After an unusual winter in 2002-03 we were excited to examine the trees to assess any potential injury. Many of the elm varieties, especially those of European descent, are la-beled as USDA Hardiness Zone 5 plants; last winter (2002-2003) and our current conditions are just what is needed to give these plants a true test of what Minnesota can dish out! Cam-perdown elm (Ulmus glabra ‘Camperdownii’) took the worst beating, this is a true Zone 5 vari-ety and we experienced severe stem damage and winter-kill. By mid-summer some of the trees were suckering out at various points along the main stem but the attractive weeping form has been severely compromised. Another selection that suffered severe damage was the Frontier elm (U. carpinifolia x parvifolia ‘Frontier.) Although this tree has simply outstanding deep red fall color, winter damage seems to preclude it from becoming a household name. While last winter was unusually severe, we feel that, due to hardiness issues, both the Frontier and Camperdown elms will be poor candidates for general nursery production in Minnesota. The good news is that many varieties came through with flying colors. The selections out of the Morton Arboretum all performed quite well. Accolade™ (U. japonica x wilsoniana ‘Morton’) has already shown to be an excellent winter hardy choice for Minnesota, and their newer selections including Vanguard™ (U. complex hybrid ‘Morton Plainsman’), Triumph™ (U. complex hybrid ‘Morton Glossy’), Danada Charm™ (U. japonica x wilsoniana ‘Morton Red Tip’), and Commendation™ (U. complex hybrid ‘Morton Stalwart’) all proved to be quite winter hardy so far. These “complex hybrid” trees often involve seedlings selections from Acco-lade™ or a complex combination of crosses with species and cultivated elm types. One of our current favorites is the Pioneer elm (U. glabra x carpinifolia ‘Pioneer’.) We really like the form

Ulmus glabra

‘Camperdownii’

‘Frontier’ - red fall color

Elms are Back!

and unique leaf shape of this tree and, although it is another Zone 5 plant, it has proven to be fairly tolerant of our winters so far. It’s rounded form and smaller mature size will set it apart from true American elms, but its habit in the nursery is very nice indeed. Other cur-rent favorites include Triumph™, Accolade™, and Discovery (U. japonica ‘Discovery’.)

Many elms, including the true American types, show growth rates that are almost unmanageable in the nursery setting. Maintenance of a strong central leader usually requires a least two years of staking and taping or bud staking/splinting after heading back cuts. An-other challenge is scouting for poor branch attachment. High winds and severe summer storms in 2002 and 2003 have allowed us to examine susceptibility to storm breakage. Val-ley Forge and Princeton elms (true Ulmus americana selections) and Cathedral (U. pumila x japonica ‘Cathedral’), Prospector (U. wilsoniana ‘Prospector’), Vanguard™, Triumph™, and Danada Charm™ have required above average maintenance in this area. Princeton has also shown some winter dieback, but further assessment is needed. Some selections have shown to be quite carefree in the nursery, requiring little training or corrective pruning. Some of these varieties include: Pioneer, Discovery, Accolade™, Homestead (U. complex hybrid ‘Homestead’), and New Horizon (U. pumila x japonica ‘New Horizon’.)

Insect pressure seems to be much more pronounced in the nursery setting than in the landscape. Spring cankerworms were present on many varieties in 2003, but didn’t seem to have any lasting negative effects. Leafhoppers produced the most damage last summer. The unattractive distortion of the foliage and severe “stacking” of buds due to this insect will require careful scouting and subsequent control. Other potential pests include leaf miners and, of course, elm leaf beetle. The varieties most affected by insects included: Discovery, Cathedral, Prospector, and Valley Forge. Those showing most resistance to general insect pressure are Accolade™, Danada Charm™, Vanguard™, Triumph™, and Commendation™. During the winter of 2003-2004 we observed what appears to be extensive feeding by the European elm bark beetle. While we didn’t perform a thorough measurement of feeding, most trees seem to be affected. An interesting note is that the beetles appear to be only feeding. To date we haven’t observed larvae or larval galleries. This is another excellent test of the resistance in these selections, especially the pure U. americana elms.

Disease pressure has been relatively minor overall, although this year we saw espe-cially severe anthracnose. Vanguard™ has shown particular susceptibility to this disease, as has Danada Charm™. Thus far we haven’t seen any other diseases of major importance. In spring of 2003 we had our first harvest. We harvested all the Cathedral, New Horizon, Homestead and many of the Discovery and Pioneer elms. Some of the larger trees were well into the 4” caliper range and were harvested B&B with a 44” spade, the rest were harvested with a skid loader mounted 34” spade. Many of these trees are now growing in the Minneapolis Parks system, and a few were planted on the Minneapolis and St. Paul cam-puses. Of all the varieties evaluated I feel that at least 75% have excellent potential for nurs-ery production in Minnesota. Another 100+ will be harvested out in the spring of 2004. Our study involves only field production and growers looking to produce these trees in con-tainers could use this data as a framework but should be aware of inconsistencies, especially in hardiness, with these plants. It must also be stressed that this data is collected in a nurs-ery production setting and that implies that these trees may perform much differently when planted in a landscape setting.

We publish our elm data annually on our website at www.tre.umn.edu under the “Current Research” page. Charts, graphs, and pictures are available online along with much more detail.

‘Pioneer’ - very promising.

‘Danada charm’ ™

Below: New Horizon - Photo

from October 2002, tree

harvested fall of 2003.

Tree Care Advisors (TCAs) Ten Years:

Abstract: Minnesota’s Tree Care Advisor (TCA) program took root ten years ago. In those ten years the roster of TCAs has increased from 52 to 168 and TCAs now represent 20 counties in Min-nesota. Over the ten year life of the program TCAs have contributed 31,715.9 hours to urban and community forestry interests in Minnesota. The non-profit coalition “Independent Sector” calculated a volunteer’s time to be worth $16.54 per hour for the year 2002. Using that figure the TCAs have then contributed $524,580 (2002 dollars) over the ten year life of the program. TCA Program History: Now in its eleventh year, Minnesota’s tree Care Advisor program continues to thrive. The program has always been based on a strong collaborative effort involving several State agencies and private concerns. In 1995 Gary Johnson provided the following history relating to the in-ception of the Tree Care Advisor (TCA) program:

In 1992, the University of Minnesota Extension Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources cooperatively initiated the development of an urban forestry training pro-gram, targeting individuals who would serve as urban and community forestry project volun-teers following the training. Funding for the two year pilot program was provided through a focus funding grant from the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry. The pilot proposal specified that three training programs would be developed and offered to individuals in urban-centered regions of Minnesota.

Minnesota was not alone in setting up grassroots programs to address needs in urban forestry. The need for such a program in Minnesota is discussed in the following paragraphs written by Gary Johnson in 1995:

Demand for volunteers. The demand for developing a urban forestry stewardship program in Minnesota came primarily from the Minnesota Extension Service's (MES) Master Gar-dener Program and its county coordinators, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-sources [MNDNR] Division of Forestry. Minnesota has an extensive network of volunteer Master Gardeners, over 1200 active members, and the county coordinators reported a sig-nificant increase in urban forestry related questions and issues confronting Master Garden-ers. At the same time, the MNDNR Division of Forestry was assuming a larger role in statewide urban forestry issues and education, and felt a need existed to build a network of trained volunteers, strategically located throughout the urban-centered areas of Minnesota. The MNDNR could refer citizens to these trained volunteers for answers to basic questions on tree care and tree health.

Over the years TCAs have continued to step up to meet the needs of the communities that they are involved in and have become very effective in community outreach and education pro-grams. One example of the programs success and professionalism is its evolution to include a number of “Green Industry” professionals. Several have attended the training sessions with the under-standing that they are not expected to follow through on a volunteer commitment. The TCA Program 2003: Administration and Support: Support of the TCA program has evolved over time and relies heavily on several partners. These partners include: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, United States Forest Service, Minnesota TreeTrust, Great River Greening, and the University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources, Department of Forest Resources along with the University of Minnesota Extension Service. One full time Faculty and one full time staff person from the University of Minnesota, Depart-ment of Forest Resources act as coordinators for the program. Duties include overseeing the

Note: This report will be

turned over to the Minne-

sota DNR, United States

Forest Service and other

interested Tree Care Advi-

sor partners.

TCAs: Ten Years

annual core course training, quarterly update trainings, tracking and reporting of volunteer hours, maintaining a TCA web site and preparing a quarterly TCA newsletter. Application Process: In order to become a Tree Care Advisor candidates must apply to the program. The ap-plication is very straightforward and focuses on several categories. A series of questions on the application explores the applicants intended commitment to the program. It is a requirement of each applicant that the entire core course training be attended (see “Training” below). Attendance at the core course has been the only rigid requirement that the applicants must meet. A less rigid requirement, more of a target goal, of the program is that the applicant must commit 50 volunteer hours to the program in the first year and 25 volunteer hours in sub-sequent years. This requirement is taken directly from the Master Gardener program in Minnesota and since Master Gardeners have made this commitment to a program already, they are given priority as candidates to the Tree Care Advisor Program. Lastly, the application process attempts to gauge the candidates current tree and shrub (or plant) knowledge and in some cases “Green Industry” knowledge. One of the focuses of the program is public outreach through many venues. So, there is an added bonus if peo-ple come to the program as good plant stewards prepared to carry the TCA message for-ward through community education forums. Training: A requirement that a TCA candidate must meet is to attend the 30 hours of classroom and field instruction, the Tree Care Advisor Core Course. Typically, this course is spread over five (8:30 am to 3:30 pm) Saturday sessions but, other arrangements have been made depending on the target audience. Topics covered in the core course materials include but are not limited to: working as a volunteer, tree and shrub selection, matching trees and shrubs to the site, introduction to soils, preventing construction damage, planting trees and shrubs, formative care, and a ba-sic introduction to pests and diseases of trees and shrubs. The predominant focus in this course is on urban and community forestry. In recent years there has been one class offered in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Class size is limited to 20 in order to maintain a very informal structure, with an open con-versational tone to the sessions. Tree Care Advisor Activities: The active TCAs find many venues to reach the public and most of the TCAs find a public that is eager to gather information that will improve their trees and shrubs. TCAs have become established partners in Community education programs, State, County and Com-munity Fair booths, Yard and Garden phone lines, planting projects for communities and at schools. Gary Johnson’s report in 1995 broke down TCA activities in the early years as found in Table 1. This summary (Table 1) from June of 1994 reveals that “Educational” activities accounted for almost 50% of the hours volunteered by Tree Care Advisors. Yet, the phone contacts, booths and even the planting projects are important venues at which to put forth a mes-sage pertaining to tree and shrub care.

TCAs: Ten Years

Compare this early snapshot to chart 1 and table 2 on page 14 and note that the “Speaking” category, equivalent to “Educational” above, is still a strong focus of the TCAs. Recognition: Upon completion of the core course TCAs are awarded a certificate of completion. Addi-tionally, their names are added to an annually updated Minnesota Tree Care Advisor Di-rectory which is available to a limited number of agencies seeking volunteers for tree re-lated projects and outreach. Obligation: TCAs are asked to set goals. In the first year it is expected that a TCA commit 50 volun-teer hours to the program and 25 volunteer hours in subsequent years. It is also expected that the TCAs submit a report of their volunteer hours on at least an annual basis with some description of the activities that those hours were directed towards. There have been 275 people trained through the TCA Core Course sessions in the past ten years and there are currently 168 TCAs listed in the TCA directory. Some of the at-tendees participate in the training for professional interest with no intention of donating volunteer hours. So, the tracking of volunteer hours is currently following a listing of 130 TCAs. This brings us to a data collection shortcoming in this program. Keep in mind that this is a volunteer group and the reporting of hours is completely voluntary. There are TCAs working in their communities that for whatever reason do not report any hours to our office. For example, of the 130 currently active TCAs – 61 reported hours in 2003. Even with less than half of the TCAs reporting, there were 4,790.9 volunteer hours given to communities in 2003.

Table 1: Categories of Volunteer Hours (Summary from June 1, 1994)

Activity Total Hours

(2179 Total volunteer hours)

Educational 1038

Personal/phone contacts 307

Garden show/booths 51

State Fair booths 96

Arbor Day; Arbor Month; Earth Day 215

Planting tree care projects [schools] 90

Community forestry projects 116

Special projects 266

TCAs: Ten Years

Reporting Hours: Traditionally, the contributed TCA hours have been reported as a total for the year to the State Program Offices that were interested. The traditional report assisted in furthering the program, in securing funding, and as a means of showing benefits that TCA contribu-tions have to community programs and to communities in general. This report is more in depth and breaks down the TCA contributions into activities for years 1997 through 2003 unless otherwise noted. A couple of counties have not had TCAs for each of these years and those exceptions are noted. The years 1993 through 1996 were not included in this report since it appears that data sheets are missing and at this time the data cannot be verified. Descriptions of Categories: TCA Volunteer Contributions Planting: Activities include landscape design, tree maintenance activities such as pruning and winter care, community plantings, and tree selection. Some private homeowner land-scaping consultations were included here. Speaking: TCAs are involved in community education programs with tree related topics being the focus. These programs are held in Senior Centers, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. TCAs are also presenting topics at conferences and at a variety of community functions. These hours include preparation time. Media: TCAs are involved in writing articles (newspaper, newsletter), preparing display boards, video sessions for local TV channels, and radio call-in shows. Committee: These hours include County Master Gardener meetings and advisory groups. Some planning sessions for other TCA related activities were included. Continuing Ed: TCAs take part in many educational opportunities such as Shade Tree Short Course, TCA updates, Master Gardener updates and many conference sessions. Plant Diagnostic: TCAs have two approaches for basic pest and disease diagnosis; - 1 – Greater Minnesota counties such as: Blue Earth, Mower, Olmsted, Ottertail, and Wright counties – The majority of the activity is basic plant diagnosis on-site. - 2 – Most Metro Counties – The majority of the activity is at organized plant clinics Y+G lines – Yard and Garden phone lines and web based systems with TCAs and Master Gardeners handling questions and directing consumers to other resources on a range of topics from insect and tree disease to basic maintenance questions. Booths: Educational displays or question and answer time at State and County fairs, home and remodeling shows, garden centers and various community events. Other: Activities that are hard to classify or hours that were uncategorized or simply didn’t fit the other categories listed above.

TCA Activities: Educating

the public at the Washing-

ton County Fair and

through projectssuch as

buckthorn removal in Blue

Earth county.

TCAs: Ten Years

Reporting at the State Level: Chart 1: Breakdown of Volunteer Hours by Category

Table 2: Breakdown of Volunteer Hours by Category

The data reported is current as of 1/12/2004.

Planting Speaking Media Committee Continue

Ed Plant Diag

Y+G lines Booths Other

State Total 3672.6 4110.9 2216 2705 2592.5 1693.85 3274.9 2125.5 3736.25

Total Hours for Minnesota 1997-2003

26,127.95 hours

Minnesota TCA ActivitiesPercent of Time on Activities 1997-2003

Total TCA Volunteer Hours 26127.95

Planting14%

Speaking17%

Media8%

Committee10%

Continue Ed10%

Plant Diag6%

Y+G lines13%

Booths8%

Other14%

PlantingSpeakingMediaCommitteeContinue EdPlant DiagY+G linesBoothsOther

TCAs: Ten Years

Ten Year Trend: The following chart and table are based on the “Total” line from the TCA hour spread-sheet. Note: If the year totals from 1997-2003 are added – the result is 26,528.4 hours. Compare this to the total reported on page 4 of 26,127.95 hours and a discrepancy or short-fall of 400.45 hours is obvious. This is due to the loss of physical data sheets on which TCAs had reported their time. The TCA hour breakdown for this report was rec-reated from those datasheets. Chart 2: Ten Year Trend: TCA Volunteer Hours

Table 3: Ten Year Trend: TCA Volunteer Hours

TCA Hours - 1993 to 2003

1110861.5 847.5

2368.52539.35

3559.25

3858.2

3235.5

4481

4064.2

4790.9

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Hour

s

TCA Hours

Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Hours 1110 861.5 847.5 2368.5 2539.35 3559.25 3858.2 3235.5 4481 4064.2 4790.9

Total: 31,715.9 hours contributed over the life of the TCA program

TCAs: Ten Years

Map 1: Minnesota’s Twenty Counties Represented by TCAs:

TCAs continue their education through various

activities on the St. Paul Campus of the Univer-

sity of Minnesota.

Left: A winter Tree Identification Session

Right: A mid-summer evening bug walk.

TCAs: Ten Years

Table 4: Reporting at the County Level:

** Counties not listed: Brown, Dodge, Goodhue, Pine, Rice, and Sherburne The TCAs in these counties are not reporting volunteer hours for whatever reason.

County ** Number of TCAs (2003) (According to TCA directory)

Volunteer Hours 1997-2003

Anoka 25 2,527.65 Blue Earth 2 1,656.70

Dakota 15 2,915.75 Hennepin 35 12,767.70 Mower 2 403.25 Olmsted 8 329.75 Ottertail 1 106.00 Ramsey 23 3,861.50

Scott-Carver 7 1,055.70 Stearns 1 62.00

Washington 20 1,165.00 Winona 8 916.95

Wright 3 363.00

Metro Counties in Gray

TCAs Learning From Cindy Ash at an activity in Eagan, MN.

TCAs: Ten Years

Tab

le 5

. Cou

nty

Leve

l Bre

akdo

wn

of V

olun

teer

Hou

rs b

y C

ateg

ory

Bre

akdo

wn

of h

ours

for

each

cou

nty,

for

the

year

s 19

97-2

003

(u

nles

s ot

herw

ise

note

d).

*

Mow

er C

ount

y -

2001

-200

3 on

ly

*

* O

tter

tail

Cou

nty

- 200

3 on

ly

**

*Ste

arns

Cou

nty

- 20

02 o

nly

Cou

nty

Plan

ting

Spea

king

M

edia

C

omm

ittee

C

ontin

ue

Educ

atio

n Pl

ant D

iag-

nost

ic

Yard

+

Gar

den

Boot

hs

Oth

er

Tota

l For

Cou

nty

Anok

a 29

0.5

355

282

67

242.

25

311

498.

4 96

.5

385

2527

.65

Blue

Ear

th

328.

35

418.

5 57

.5

82.5

17

0.75

24

2.1

67

184

106

1656

.7

Dak

ota

357.

75

274.

5 17

7 38

5.5

747.

5 16

0.75

24

4.75

37

7.5

190.

5 29

15.7

5

Hen

nepi

n 12

58

1728

.7

1273

16

03.5

60

7.5

257.

5 64

9.5

802.

5 25

84.7

5 12

767.

7

Mow

er *

9.5

130.

25

0 6

52.5

12

7.5

52.2

5 25

.25

0 40

3.25

Olm

sted

17

.5

117.

75

6.5

57

56.5

1.

5 2.

5 64

6.

5 32

9.75

Otte

rtail

**

0 1

0 0

30

58.7

5 14

.25

2 0

106

Ram

sey

774

368.

25

78

110.

5 37

9.5

298.

5 14

55

229.

75

168

3861

.5

Scot

t-Car

ver

106.

5 32

9.5

212.

2 19

14

5 26

.75

9.5

139.

5 67

.75

1055

.7

Stea

rns

***

46

8 0

0 0

8 0

0 0

62

Was

hing

ton

322

170

41

160

91.5

56

.5

44

163

117

1165

Win

ona

145.

5 12

4.95

32

21

4 56

.5

131

93.7

5 14

.5

104.

75

916.

95

Wrig

ht

17

84.5

57

.5

0 13

14

14

4 27

6

363

TCAs: Ten Years

Value to the communities: Given the value of a volunteer’s time as calculated by the non-profit coalition “Independent Sector” to be worth $16.54 per hour for the year 2002, the TCA program is contributing the following to communities: 2003 hours contributed: 4,790.90 hours $79,241. 1997-2003 Hours contributed: 26,127.95 hours $432,156 (2002 dollars) 1992-2003 Hours contributed: 31,715.90 hours $524,580 (2002 dollars). Agency Support: Key to the success of this program are many collaborating partners providing technical ex-pertise and training materials. TCA training sessions are offered at minimal costs to par-ticipants; yet, are a minimal drain on budgets since there are many in-kind contributions and many instructors volunteering time. Reasons for TCA Program Success:

- Collaborative support provided by several agencies. This collaboration cannot be emphasized enough. These agencies provide trainers and in-kind contributions such as manuals, training materials and other relevant publications.

- Flexibility of commitment – The volunteer commitment of 25 hours is considered a target or goal… It is not viewed as a requirement.

- TCAs are respected and viewed as “professional” due to dedicated individuals with prior commitment as Master Gardeners and professionals in the green industry.

- A quarterly newsletter providing update information and information on the latest research aimed at keeping TCAs abreast of current research and trends.

- Web site that provides the TCAs with valuable resources and up to date schedules of activities.

- Surveys are used to help direct the program, to help develop a focus on training needs and to develop an understanding of activities that TCAs are involved in.

Future: A definite strength of this program is its many partners. Partnering with a variety of State, Federal and not-for-profit agencies in many regards strengthens the program and in some ways insulates it during tough economic times. As this program moves forward TCAs should be proactive and look for new ways to aid urban and community forestry interests in their communities. There will be many oppor-tunities for TCAs to aid state and federal agencies in disseminating messages and technolo-gies to the general public through educational programs.

Works Cited:

Johnson, Gary R., Tree Care Advisor: A voluntary Stewardship Program,

Journal of Arboriculture 21 (1): January 1995 pgs. 25-31

Independent Sector, INDEPENDENT SECTOR Releases New Value of Volun-

teer Time , http://www.independentsector.org/media/

voltime03pr.html ,online, available, January 27 2004.

Ulmaceae Family in Minnesota

From Native American Tribal “Council Trees” to meeting areas for George Washington;

early Americans were continually drawn to gather under the arching canopy of the majestic

elm tree. The high branched arching canopy also made the American elm a perfect twen-

tieth century street tree until the introduction of the fungus that causes Dutch elm disease.

This disease has seriously affected the usefulness and utility value of the American elm.

However, despite susceptibility to Dutch elm disease, this tree remains a favorite in our

hearts and in our minds eye.

Six species of elm are native to the United States, three are of importance and those three

elms are native to Minnesota: rock or cork elm (Ulmus thomasii), red or slippery elm

(Ulmus rubra) and of course American or white elm (Ulmus americana). Each has its own

unique characteristics but of these three elms the American elm easily rises above the

other two in height, girth and canopy spread.

The elms discussed below have alternate branching patterns and the leaves develop a yel-

low fall color.

Rock elm (Ulmus thomasii): A medium to large sized tree native to the south eastern por-

tion of Minnesota. This tree of smaller stature (compared to slippery and American) still

attains heights of 80 feet with a dbh of 3-4 feet.

The leaves of rock elm are obovate to elliptical with a doubly serrate margin (toothed

edge). The leaf surfaces are glabrous and shiny above while the underside is slightly pubes-

cent. In comparison to the other two elms described here the leaf bases are nearly equi-

lateral.

One of the distinct identification characteristics on rock elm is the corky wings or ridges

on the twigs and small branchlets. The bark on the mature stem or trunk is similar to that

of the American elm but is typically darker and more deeply furrowed.

Slippery Elm (Ulmus rubra): A medium to large sized tree 60-70 feet tall with a dbh of 18

to 30 inches. Overall in appearance and form the slippery elm resembles the American

elm; however, there are some significant differences in distinguishing characteristics.

Probably the most significant and diagnostic has to do with the layering of the bark. Slip-

pery elm bark is comprised of layers of brown when viewed in cross-section, while the

bark of American elm is comprised of layers of brown and tan – “bacon bark.”

The leaves are doubly serrate, nearly equal at the base and obovate to nearly oval in shape.

The mid-rib and the veins are quite pronounced with the surface scabrous above and softly

pubescent below. The fruit is an oval winged samara with a smooth surface and a smooth

margin.

The twigs of slippery elm are gray and stouter than those of American elm and are typically

pubescent. It is said that the inner bark is mucilaginous, hence the name slippery.

Ulmus americana - samara have a

ciliated margin (hairy margin)

compare to rubra and its smooth

samara margin.

Ulmus thomasii - corky ridges or

wings on the twigs. Very dis-

tinct.

Photo courtesy of: Bill Cook

www.forestryimages.org

Ulmaceae Family in Minnesota

Compare several of these characteristics with those of American elm. For instance, look

closely at the layered bark of the American elm, the twig smoothness, bud size, leaf sur-

faces, and sheer size of the typical mature American elm.

American elm (Ulmus americana): A large tree with a vase like form with high arching

branches that form a beautiful canopy over city streets. The bark on a mature tree has flat

topped ridges and the furrows form diamond shaped patterns. A very strong identification

characteristic can be seen by looking at the bark in cross-section. Layers of brown and

light tan form a pattern referred to as “bacon bark.”

The leaves of the American elm are coarsely doubly serrate on the margin, the bases are

in-equilateral and the top surface is glabrous to slightly scabrous with the underside slightly

pubescent.

The fruit is again an oval samara, but on the American elm the margin of the samara is cili-

ated and the apex is deeply notched. In addition the twigs are brown in color and sparingly

pubescent if not glabrous.

So, in comparing the stature of the three elm species discussed here and by taking a look

back in history it becomes obvious that there is only one tree that truly deserves to be

called the “American” tree. That tree is of course the American elm (Ulmus americana).

According to Donald Culross Peattie:

“So an Elm can scarcely grow old without collecting rich human associations

around it. In this respect it has but two rivals in all the slyva of North America –

the White Oak of the northern states and the Live Oak in the South. But a sur-

vey of all the historic trees of our country shows that among them Elms outnum-

ber each of these Oaks nearly two to one.”

The early pioneers where drawn to elm stands for many reasons. Not only were the trees

majestic, peaceful providers of shade but the trees were also providers of essential needs

such as firewood, lumber and various wood products. Even today a good deal of energy

and time is being put into restoring the elm to its rightful place in our parks and on our

boulevards.

Ulmus rubra - Samara on May 7th

2003. Seed production on many

elms was very heavy this past

year. Note: smooth margins...

Ulmus americana - leaf on a one

inch grid. Leaf has doubly ser-

rate margin and an unequal leaf

base (lop-sided).

Ulmus americana - leaf has an

unequal leaf base.

Ulmus americana - early

spring flowers - not very

showy

TCAs and Volunteer Hours 2003

"AND THE WINNERS ARE…"

After entering the volunteer

hours reported for 2003, we

have a new list of "TCA

Medalists." New medalists

to a category are those with

their names in bold font. The categories of achieve-

ment signify the total volun-

teer hours contributed by

that individual since they

completed their TCA train-

ing.

BRONZE LEVEL (100-199 hours) Anna Barker Gary Schneider Doris Carroll Sharon Fisk Ronald Reeves Andy Sobert Terri Goodfellow-Hayer Dorothy Pederson Jackie Overom Lee Gilligan Paul Couture Marilyn McKay James Zastera Barbara Stendahl Gail Griffin Harold Batzer Jean Hjellming Claire Kari Kay Karsell Lou Ann Keleher Lynn Klessig Deb Kuechle Heide Ludwig Herb Pieper Kathy Pollock Beverly Quam

Laurie Drolson Jay Willet Cindy Matiski Roxanne Hardy Ken Kirchner Dianne Ballentine Cindy Ralls Jane Saltvold David Paulson Lynn Vernon SILVER LEVEL (200-299 hours) Joyce Nellis Charles Hueser Audrey Dolby Diana Bolander Tim Wedekind Leah Peterson Bruce Granos Paula Denman Francis Eberlein Barbara Leschisin Vera Wagner Gordon Hanson Georgiann Keyport Pat Friedrichs Polly Augustson Maureen Lundgren Barbara Harlan Margaret Kirchner GOLD LEVEL (300-499 hours) Mike Sowers Nancy Bjerke Jane Klein Barbara Kirkpatrick Glen Hambleton PLATINUM LEVEL (Over 500 hours) Lorrie Stromme Patti Lee Gates Carolyn Dingfelder

Robert Condon * Skip Rither Esther Filson * Rita Nystrom ** Jim Nelson * Gordon Herbst Mimi Hottinger Warren Banks Cliff Johnson Janet Larson Sherry Akins *Extraordinary Recogni-tion. (1000+ hours club)

**Most Hours Recogni-tion.

Thank you, thank you, thank

you to all of these TCAs!

YOU and your fellow TCAs

are the reason that this pro-

gram has such a wonderful

reputation.

Shade Tree Short Course

Tree Care Advisors

Recognition, Opportuni-

ties, and Thank You!

The TCA program continues

to have its own "track" at the

2004 MN Shade Tree Short

Course (STSC)! When the

STSC brochure is mailed out

(approximately 6 weeks be-

fore the STSC), you will see

several courses unique to the

TCA registrant. This really is

an acknowledgement of your

value to urban and commu-

nity forestry in Minnesota,

and shows that many others

recognize the contributions

that you make.

The MN STSC will be held on March 23 and 24, 2004, at Bethel College. When you receive your brochure, register through me (Gary or Dave), NOT through the Univer-

sity.

Again, there is an automatic price break on registration costs for TCAs that have

reached a category of achievement. So, for those TCAs listed in the different "medalists"

categories, here are the price reductions:

Bronze Level: 40% off.

Silver Level: 60% off.

Gold Level: 80% off.

Platinum Level: Free Registration!

On both days, there will be a TCA Luncheon. On the first day, there will be a

recognition ceremony at the luncheon for all the new members of the four,

medalist categories. Both days, however, will provide TCAs with their own room to

dine, chat, renew old friendships, make new ones, and maybe even offer to mentor new

TCAs.

If you want to volunteer your time at the STSC (and count them as volunteer

hours), please contact me or David. Once again, Patti Lee Gates has agreed to coordinate

the volunteers, which is a great relief to all of us. Patti has done an outstanding job in the

past. If you serve as a volunteer for the expected hours of service, you can attend the

STSC free. Patti Lee sets the volunteer guidelines - not me, not David, not you - and

if you can work within those guidelines, we'd love to have you help us.

Keep your chin

up !

Spring

Will

Come!

Flowers on

Crataegus crusgalli

‘Thornless Cockspur

Hawthorn’

Trivia answer from page 1: You deserve credit if you had a resource that provided this answer…

Betulaceae: The birch family…

1) Betula spp. - The easy and obvious genera with species such as paper birch and sweet birch…

2) Alnus spp. - The Alders - a “swamp thing” in Minnesota, “speckled alder.”

3) Corylus spp. - Not so obvious, the members of the hazelnut family: cornuta and americana.

4) Carpinus spp. - A small tree called Musclewood, Blue Beech, or American Hornbeam.

5) Ostrya spp. - A common, understory tree in Minnesota forests - Ironwood or hophornbeam.

And now, the not so easy to find genus...

6) Ostryopsis spp. - Ostryopsis davidiana - Restricted to Eastern Asia.

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 County Contacts: Anoka County (Patrick Weicherding) – 763-755-1280 or [email protected] Blue Earth County – (507)389-8325 Carver County (Jackie Smith) - (952) 442-4496 or [email protected] Dakota County (Barb Stendahl) – 952-463-8002 or [email protected] Hennepin County (Bob Mugaas) – 612-374-8400 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: Paula Denman, Chair – 612-338-1871, [email protected] Bob Condon – 952-890-1228, [email protected] Laurie Drolson – 651-464-9829, [email protected] Bruce Granos – 952-423-5211, [email protected] Mimi Hottinger – 507-388-4838, [email protected] Additional Reference Contacts: Debby Newman (Info-U) – 612-624-3263 Don Mueller, DNR Forestry – 651-772-6148 [email protected] Great River Greening – 651-665-9500 Ken Holman, DNR Forestry – 651-296-9110 [email protected] Paul Walvatne MNDOT – 651-284-3793 [email protected] Tree Trust – 651-644-5800

Left: Bark of Paper Birch Center: Seeds and Bracts of Blue Beech Right: Seed structure of Ironwood

2004_volume11_issue1

Documents

american elm

dave hanson

elm street

contact tree

dakota county tca

tca program

elms contribution

tree care advisors