For more than 30 years, Arbor Age magazine has been covering new and innovative products, services, technology and research vital to tree care companies, municipal arborists and utility right-of-way maintenance companies
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/85903
Now we determine the treatments we wish to evaluate for our study and randomly assign them to the trees in the trial.Randomization is an important step as this eliminates the bias of researchers and is necessary for producing valuable statistics.Untreated trees are also one of the treat- ments in any study as they are the "control group"—the group against which all our treatments will be evaluated. Our trial will also include trees treated at the current industry rates and rates higher than this to satisfy our hypothesis.Depending upon the type of trial we are under- taking, these treatments may be evaluated just once or reapplied and evaluated over several years. Evaluations can be made several ways for a trial like this.Percent-canopy-decline is the most com- mon evaluation for field trials,where an observer estimates the percent of the canopy that appears thin or dead compared to a full canopy.We could also sample branches from the trees, remove the bark,and count the number of viable EAB larvae in the branches.This does give a more accurate assessment of the effects of the treatments,but is also more costly and time consuming. When our data is collected,we analyze the effects the treatment had and compare the results to our untreated,control trees.This is where we revisit our hypothesis:"Current industry label rates of soil-applied imidacloprid under-dose trees over 15 inches in diameter. " Rather than asking if our hypothesis has been "proven right," we ask,"has it been falsified?" If the data show there is no statistical significance between our trees treated at current industry rates and the higher rates we used in our study,we would reject our hypothesis that the higher death rate of larger trees was related to a dosage issue and begin the process of evaluating another hypoth- esis.Conversely, if our data showed the trees treated at greater dosage rates survived in signif- icantly higher numbers than those treated with industry standard rate, our hypothesis has not been falsified,and we can begin the process of making a label rate change with the EPA. Over the past few decades,the arboriculture industry has striven to move us away from the "spray and pray"tree care of the past by devel- oping predictable protocols through rigorous employment of the scientific method at every step of the process.Funding for research is,more often than not,the limiting factor determining if a study is preformed or not. Product manu- facturers are a major player in tree care research as data is the currency of success in this market, but they are not the only sources of research for arborists.Universities,non-profit organizations, and grant-giving foundations such as the TREE www.arborage.com Arbor Age / October 2012 17 Fund are important entities for supporting the growing knowledge base of arboriculture.New breakthroughs and a better understanding of our current practices will all come from a strong foundation in research. If we continue to push for a better understanding, just think where the next few decades will bring us. Brandon Gallagher Watson is director of communications at Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements,and is an ISA Certified Arborist (#MN-4086A).