United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Time and Materials Needed to Survey, 

Forest Service 

Inject Systematic Fungicides, 

Northeastern Forest 

and Install Root-Graft Barriers 

Experiment Station for Dutch Elm Disease Management 

Research Paper NE-585 

1986 William N. Cannon, Jr. Jack H. Baraer 

Charles J. costichka 
The Authors 

William N. Cannon, Jr. is a research entomologist with 

the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station's Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory at Delaware, Ohio. He received 

B.S. and M.S. degrees in agriculture from the University of Delaware, and a Ph.D. degree in entomology 

from The Ohio State University. Before joining the 

USDA Forest Service in 1965, he was a research associate in the Department of Entomology at Oregon 

State University. 

Jack H. Barger, a research entomologist, received a 

B.S. degree in education from Concord College and 

MS. and Ph.D. degrees in entomology from The Ohio 

State University. In 1965 he joined the Northeastern 

Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Delaware, 

Ohio. 

Charles J. Kostichka, former Dutch elm disease education coordinator for the University of WisconsinExtension, received B.S. and M.S. degrees in environmental science from the University of WisconsinGreen Bay. 

Manuscript received for publication 31 December 1985 

Abstract 

Dutch elm disease control practice in 15 communities 

showed a wide range of time and material required 

to apply control methods. The median time used for 

each method was: sanitation survey, 9.8 hours per 

square mile; symptom survey, 96 hours per thousand 

elms; systematic fungicide injection, 1.4 hours per 

elm; and root-graft barrier installation, 2.2 hours per 

barrier (5.6 minlft). The median amount of Arbotect 

20-S used for disease therapy was 13 ounces per 

elm. The median amount of Vapam used for soil fumigation for root-graft control was 3 ounces per foot. 
I Designing cost-effective programs for managing Dutch 

elm disease (DED) requires that the manager know 

the time it takes to perform recommended control activities, and the amount and cost of materials needed 

1 for each activity. This information would be useful in 

determining which activities can be funded and accomplished. 

A study was made of the time needed for (1) sanitation survey, (2) symptom survey, (3) systemic fungicide injection for DED therapy, and (4) installation 

of root-graft barriers. The amount of materials used for 

systemic injection and root-graft barriers was determined for this report. 

Results 

There is great variation in the times reported for these 

control practices (Table 2); differences between the 

shortest and longest times varied sevenfold for systemic injection and up to fifteenfold for symptom surveys. The frequency distributions of time for each I 

practice showed that they were not normally distributed (Fig. 1). We analyzed the data for each practice 

to see if time was related to size of the community, 

the annual rate of elm mortality, or the type of DED 

management program (Table 1). No such relationships 

were found. Communities with similar characteristics 

had widely divergent time records. Many unmeasured 

variables may have influenced the control-practice 

time. 

Methods 

In 1980, data from community-wide integrated management programs were obtained from 15 Wisconsin 

communities (Kostichka 1982) which were participants 

in the Wisconsin DED Control Demonstration Program. They represented a wide range of physical I characteristics, elm inventories, and DED situations 

(Table 1). 1 

i 

Records of job time and materials used for individual 

control practices were kept by program supervisors in 

l each community. Not every community furnished data 

for each control practice, but for those that did we 

1 determined the median value and range of values for 

each practice. 

Additional data on symptom surveys were obtained 1 from a study in Michigan (Barger 1977). Three surveys were made during the season. Each survey was 

made by driving along each street twice and visually 

inspecting elms to the right of the observer. In areas 

where elms were sparse and their crowns did not 

overlap, elms on both sides of the street were sur- 1 veyed during one pass along the street. 

I I 

Records of gross job time, the number of trees surveyed per hour, and the number of diseased elms 

found (Worley et al. 1965) were kept for these surveys. The number of elms per mile of street was determined from the records and city maps, and related 

to the survey times by regression analysis. 

'~assett, S. R.; Groth, L. J.; Krawczyk, J.; Schaefer, S.; 

Kostichka, C. J. Wisconsin Dutch elm disease control demonstration program accomplishment report. Madison, WI: 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin-Extension; 1980. 141 p. 

Sanitation Survey 

A lot by lot examination for actual or potential elm 

bark beetle breeding sites and pathogen reservoirs 

was made in the spring by control technicians. In most 

cases they walked because they needed to inspect 

many backyard elms and piles of firewood. Vehicles 

were used for transportation to and from survey areas. 

Time spent on these surveys ranged from 3.1 to 38.1 

hours per square mile of control area (median: 9.8 

hours). On a thousand-elm basis, the median time 

was 8.9 hours (range: 2.5 to 55.4 hours) (Tables 2-3). 

Time based on area is more useful for planning sanitation surveys since the entire management area must 

be canvassed each year despite any decrease in the 

number of elms. Estimates based on the number of 

elms are less meaningful as the elm population declines. 

Symptom Survey 

Every elm in each community was examined by technicians on foot for foliage symptoms of DED once a 

month in June, July, August, and September. The 

times to do all four surveys ranged from 23 to 356 

hours per thousand elms (median: 96 hours) (Tables 

2-3). 

We computed the number of elms surveyed per hour 

in each community. The survey rate ranged from 11 to 

178 elms per hour (median: 42 elms). One-half of the 

communities had survey rates between 22 and 75 

elms per hour, and one-fourth had even higher rates. 
SANITATION SURVEY SYMPTOM SURVEYS 

7 14 21 28 35 42 

HOURS/SQUARE MILE (Number) 

ROOT-GRAFT BARRIER 

HOURS/THOUSAND ELMS (Number1 

SYSTEMIC INJECTION 

MINUTESIFOOT (Number] MINUTESIELM (Number) 

Figure 1 .-Frequency distributions of time used to apply DED control practices 

in Wisconsin communities, 1980. 

Table 1 .-Physical characteristics of Dutch elm disease situation in Wisconsin 

demonstration program communities 

No. of Year when 

Control elms in first case 

zone 1980 of DED Elm mortality rate (%lb 

Community areaa inventory reported 1978 1979 1980 

Miles em------ Percent -------- 

LOW DISEASE RATE (<5%)" 

MEDIUM DISEASE RATE (510%) 

HIGH DISEASE RATE (>lo%) 

"Designated intensive control zone within community. 

b~ased on residual elm population at beginning of each year. 

"Communities classified by initial elm mortality rate. 
The use of a vehicle to survey requires two people 

and should allow the crew to survey more elms per 

hour than can be surveyed on foot. This technique 

was used in a sanitation study in Detroit (Cannon et 

al. 1977). Since then, additional job time records have 

provided new information on survey time. These results along with earlier survey data are shown in Figure 2. 

The first survey of the season took more time than 

subsequent surveys. As the number of trees per mile 

increased from 20 to 60, the number of hours per 

thousand trees decreased from 9.8 to 6.5 in 1976 and 

from 7 to 3.4 in 1978. By 1978, survey speed increased by about 28 percent; at the higher tree densities, survey speed increased at a more rapid rate than 

in 1976 (Fig. 2). 

Table 2.-Median and range of time used to apply 

Dutch elm disease control measures in 

Wisconsin communities, 1980 

Time spent on 

Number of control measures 

Item communities Median Range 

Sanitation survey 

(hr/1,000 elms) 9 8.9 2.5-55.4 

(hr/mi2) 9 9.8 3.1-38.1 

Symptom surveya 

(hr/1,000 elms) 15 96.0 23.0-356.0 

Systemic injection 

(min/elm) 12 86.0 36.0-21 6.0 

Root-graft barrier 

(hrlbarrier) 15 2.2 0.2-5.5 

(minlft) 15 5.6 1.5-17.1 

"Data for a total of four surveys per season. 

Table 3.-Timea (per thousand elms) spent on control measures in Wisconsin demonstration program 

communities, 1980 

Sanitation Sympto,m Root graft Fungicide 

survey survey barrier injection 

% of % of % of % of 

Total total total total total 

Community time Hours time Hours time Hours time Hours time 

Hours 

LOW DISEASE RATE (<5%)" 

A 43.5 9.5 22 31.5 72 3.0 6 0 0 

B 72.5 2.5 3 27.5 38 11.0 16 31 .O 43 

C 389.5 55.5 14 195.0 50 75.5 20 63.5 16 

D 116.5 2.5 3 108.5 92 3.0 3 2.5 2 

MEDIUM DISEASE RATE (5-1 0%) 

E 165.5 0 0 153.0 92 3.0 2 10.0 6 

F 66.5 3.5 5 22.5 34 3.0 5 37.0 56 

G 81.5 10.5 13 50.5 62 6.0 7 14.5 18 

H 237.0 8.5 4 96.5 40 104.0 44 28.0 12 

I 306.0 0 0 254.5 83 16.0 5 35.5 12 

J 90.0 12.0 13 67.0 74 11.8 13 0 0 

K 141 .O 5.5 4 56.5 40 56.5 40 22.0 16 

HIGH DISEASE RATE (>lo%) 

L 296.5 0 0 251 .O 85 3.0 1 42.5 14 

M 126.5 0 0 80.5 64 37.0 29 9.0 7 

N 285.0 0 0 176.0 62 11.0 4 98.0 34 

0 614.5 0 0 353.0 57 118.0 20 143.5 23 

"Rounded to nearest half hour. 

b~ata for a total of four surveys per season. 

"Communities classified by initial elm mortality rate. 
Subsequent surveys in mid-July and late August were 

completed more quickly than the initial survey, possibly because fewer diseased elms were found (0 to 

2 percent). The number of diseased elms observed 

and the number of trees per mile of street surveyed 

affected survey speed (Fig. 2). Finding as few as 2 

percent of the trees with symptoms of DED increased 

survey time in 1976 from 56 percent at 60 trees per 

mile to 94 percent at 20 trees per mile. In 1978, survey time was reduced to 23 and 39 percent, respectively. 

Overall, the time spent in 1978 on the initial survey of 

the season and subsequent surveys was significantly 

less than in 1976. We attribute this improved performance to the increased proficiency of the survey crew. 

0) II 

SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS 

.'-._ 72% DED 

-- ---_ --__ A 

- - ----_ 

1 No DED 

2 

20 40 60 

TREES/MILE (Number) 

Figure 2.-Time required to survey for DED symptoms 

as a function of the number of trees per mile of street 

surveyed. 

Systemic Fungicide Injection 

Elms werp injected with the systemic fungicide Arbotect 20-S for DED therapy. This chemical was injected into trees at a rate of 4 ounces per 5 inches 

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Various types of injection equipment were used (Sinclair and Campana 

1978, p. 34; Kostichka et al. 1979). Injected elms 

ranged in d.b.h. from 5 to 49 inches (median: 19 

inches). 

It took about 1 hour and 26 minutes on the average 

to inject each elm (range: 34 minutes to 3 hours and 

58 minutes) (Tables 2, 4). The amounts of Arbotect 

20-S used ranged from 4 to 38 ounces per elm (median: 13 ounces). 

Table 4.-Amount of time and fungicide (Arbotect 

204) used for therapeutic systemic 

fungicide injection in Wisconsin 

communities, 1980 - 

Elms Average Fungicide Injection 

Community injected d.b.h. per elm timelelm 

Number Inches Ounces Hours 

B 79 22 17.7 1 ;4 

C 92 16 12.8 1 .O 

D 10 49 38.4 2.3 

E 61 5 4.0 0.6 

F 25 1 14 11.2 0.6 

H 101 12 9.4 0.6 

I 28 16 12.3 2.6 

K 87 22 17.4 1.8 

L 17 45 10.5 3.6 

M 47 2 1 16.3 1.2 

N 7 1 22 17.7 1.4 

Root-Graft Barriers 

Soil fumigation with Vapam was used in 15 communities to prevent transmission of the DED fungus 

through root grafts between adjacent elms. This required two to four barriers per diseased elm. The median length of the barriers was 20 feet. The median 

'The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. 

Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,.the Forest 

Service, or University of Wisconsin-Extension of any product 

or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. 
time spent installing the barriers was 2.2 hours per 

barrier (5.6 minlft). The median time required to install 

a 20-foot barrier was 2 hours and 12 minutes. The 

rates of barrier installation ranged from 3.5 to 39.8 

feet per hour (median: 10.8 feet) (Table 5). The 

amount of Vapam used ranged from 1.8 to 7.6 ounces 

per foot (median: 3 ounces) (Table 5). About 3.75 

pints of Vapam would be required for a 20-foot barrier. 

Control Activities 

The total time required per thousand elms to apply the 

control activities by each community was highly variable (Table 3). For communities with low rates of DED, 

Community A spent the least amount of time while 

Community C spent as much or more time than communities with medium or high rates. Total time for 

communities in the low-rate category ranged from 43.5 

to 389.5 hours; in the medium category the range 

was 66.5 to 306 hours, and in the high category the 

range was 126.5 to 614.5 hours (Table 3). Even 

though communities with high DED rates tended to 

spend more time per thousand elms on control activities, some communities were maintaining lower DED 

rates with much less effort. 

When the four control activities were considered simultaneously, the percentage of time devoted to each 

did not depend on the severity of DED (Table 3). 

Nme of the high-rate communities made sanitation 

surveys, but all of them spent more than 50 percent of 

their time on symptom surveys. Of the medium and 

low-DED communities, only 6 of the 11 communities 

spent as much time for symptom surveys. Communities D and E spent most of their time (92 percent) 

doing symptom surveys and little time (2 and 6 percent) injecting elms, whereas Community F spent 

much time injecting elms (56 percent) and the least 

time of any community doing symptom surveys (34 

percent). Community H spent the majority of its time 

(56 percent) doing root-graft control. Community A 

spent more of its time (22 percent) on sanitation surveys than any other community. 

Discussion 

These data reinforce the conclusion of Cannon and 

Worley (1980) in a survey of 39 midwestern communities that performance in terms of elm mortality was 

not related to DED control strategies. Good performers with a low incidence of DED did a better job no 

matter what strategy they followed so long as that 

strategy was appropriate for their local situation. 

The information developed in this study should help 

managers better plan DED management programs. A 

knowledge of the median time and material required 

for a control practice can be used to plan the initial 

control program; the range indicates the extreme values that might be expected. After the program is operTable 5.-Amount of time and soil fumigant (Vapam) used for root-graft 

control in Wisconsin communities, 1980 

NO, of Average Fungicide used Barrier installation 

barriers barrier Amount1 Time1 

Community installed length barrier Rate barrier Rate 

Feet 

7.6 

22.1 

20.0 

40.8 

5.8 

51.2 

8.2 

20.0 

11.5 

28.3 

20.3 

3.9 

19.8 

90.0 

51.7 

Gallons 

0.1 

1 .o 

0.7 

2.4 

0.2 

0.7 

0.2 

0.5 

0.6 

0.7 

0.3 

0.1 

0.4 

1.3 

0.8 

Ounceslfi 

2.0 

5.5 

4.5 

7.6 

3.7 

1.8 

3.0 

3.4 

6.6 

3.2 

2.2 

2.4 

2.5 

1.8 

2.0 

Hours 

0.8 

3.2 

4.7 

4.0 

1.7 

2.2 

0.2 

1.8 

3.0 

2.6 

2.1 

0.3 

1.1 

5.5 

3.1 
: ating, the actual time and material used under local 

conditions would become the basis for subsequent 

plans. 

The wide range of times spent by Wisconsin communities for the control practices suggests that there is 

room for improved efficiency in some operations. By 

comparing the time spent on a control practice with 

our estimates, a manager can determine if his or her 

operation can be improved. 

Literature Cited 

Barger, J. H. Improved sanitation practice for control of Dutch elm disease. Res. Pap. NE-386. 

Broomall, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1971, 4 p. 

Cannon, W. N., Jr.; Worley, D. P. Dutch elm disease 

control: performance and costs. Res. Pap. NE457. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station; 1980. 8 p. 

Cannon, W. N., Jr.; Barger, J. H.; Worley, D. P. Dutch 

elm disease control: intensive sanitation and 

survey economics. Res. Pap. NE-387. Upper 

Darby, PA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 

1977. 10 p. 

Kostichka, C. J. Investigations of butternut canker 

and Dutch elm disease. Green Bay, WI: University 

of Wisconsin-Green Bay; 1982. 129 p. M.S. thesis. 

Kostichka, C. J.; Worf, G. L.; Koval, C. F.; Smalley, E. 

6.; Norgren, R. L.; Wischer, J. G. Homeowner's 

guide for controlling Dutch elm disease with 

systemic fungicides. Ext. Bull. A2842. Madison, 

WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension; 1979. 4 p. 

Sinclair, W. A.; Campana, R. J. Dutch elm disease: 

perspectives after 60 years. Search (Agric.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment 

Station; 1978; 8(5):1-52. 

Worley, D. P.; Mundell, G. L.; Williamson, R. M. 

Gross job time studies-an efficient method for 

analyzing forestry costs. Res. Note RM-54. Fort 

Collins, CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1965. 8 p. 
Cannon, William N., Jr.; Barger, Jack H.; Kostichka, Charles J. Time and 

materials needed to survey, inject systemic fungicides, and install 

root-graft barriers for Dutch elm disease management. Res. Pap. NE585. Broomall, PA: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1986. 6 p. 

Dutch elm disease control practice in 15 communities showed a wide range 

of time and material required to apply control methods. The median time 

used for each method was: sanitation survey, 9.8 hours per square mile; 

symptom survey, 96 hours per thousand elms; systemic fungicide injection, 

1.4 hours per elm; and root-graft barrier installation, 2.2 hours per barrier 

(5.6 min/ft). The median amount of Arbotect 204 used for disease therapy 

was 13 ounces per elm. The median amount of Vapam used for soil fumigation for root-graft control was 3 ounces per foot. 

I ODC 305+ 651.7+ 12X1.401 SO+412+ 443.3-1 72.8 CER 

I Keywords: Dutch elm disease; pest management; job time analysis 
Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station are in 

Broomall, Pa. Field laboratories are maintained at: 

Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of 

Massachusetts. 

Berea, Kentucky, in cooperation with hrea College. 

Burlington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of 

Vermont. 

0 Delaware, Ohio. 

0 Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of 

New Hampshire. 

0 Hamden, Connecticut, in cooperation with Yale University. 

Morgantown, West Virginia, in cooperation with West Virginia 

University, Morgantown. 

0 Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine, 

Orono. 

0 Parsons, West Virginia. 

0 Princeton, West Virginia. 

0 Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of 

New York College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at 

Syracuse University, Syracw. 

University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the 

Pennsylvania State University. 

Warren, Pennsylvania.