The Christmas Tree:
Traditions, Production, and Diseases
Gary A. Chastagner, Department of Plant Pathology, Washington State
University, Puyallup, WA and D. Michael Benson, Department of Plant
Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Christmas trees are an important specialty crop. Each year approximately 33
to 36 million Christmas trees are produced in North America and 50 to 60 million
trees are produced in Europe (23, 29, 54, 55). In the United States, there are
an estimated 15,000 growers, which includes 5,000 choose and cut farms. These
growers produced 33 million trees in 1998 with an estimated farm gate value of
$462 million. Based on a standard 6- to 7-foot-tall tree, it is estimated that
consumers spent about $1.5 billion for Christmas trees in 1998. A number of tree
species are grown as Christmas trees. However because of their superior
postharvest needle and moisture retention characteristics, demand for noble and
Fraser fir Christmas trees has increased rapidly. This paper takes a historical
look at the Christmas tree industry and discusses three diseases that are
limiting growers' ability to meet the demand for noble and Fraser fir in North
America.
The Development of the Christmas Tree Industry and Current Trends
The use of evergreens to decorate homes during winter celebrations dates back
to Biblical times. By the 7th century, the pagan custom of using greenery to
celebrate the winter solstice became a part of religious Christmas festivities,
but it was in the 16th century that Germans in Strasbourg began cutting firs
from local forests for display at Christmas. In later years, these trees were
decorated with cutout paper flowers, fruits, cakes, tinsel and sugar. By the
18th century, Christmas trees were being decorated with wax candles and by the
end of the century decorated Christmas trees could be found throughout Germany
(2).
Christmas trees were seldom used during the early years of the British
Colonies in North America. Although emigrants from northern Europe brought their
tradition of displaying Christmas trees during the celebration of Christmas to
North America, it wasn't until Hessians joined the British
forces during the Revolutionary war that there was an increased use of decorated
Christmas trees (2).
The Hessians were reported to have set up Christmas trees in the homes of
families where they stayed. They were also noted for their festive Christmas
celebrations, which are reported to have led to their defeat by General George
Washington at Trenton, NJ on December 26, 1776. Among the earliest documented
use of decorated Christmas trees in North America are a decorated and
illuminated Christmas tree that was set up in a German commander's home to the
north of Montreal, Canada in 1781 and a tree that was displayed at Fort
Dearborn, MI in 1804.
According to Albers and Davis (2), Mark Carr established the first Christmas
tree market when he harvested fir and spruce trees from the Catskill Mountains
and sold them at the Washington Market in New York City in 1851. By the 1880s,
200,000 trees were being shipped into the Washington Market by wagons, trains,
and ships from forests as far away as New Hampshire and Massachusetts. In
the west, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) was being harvested
from forests in western Washington and shipped to markets in Texas and southern
California prior to 1920 (59).
Fig. 1. Harvesting Douglas-fir trees from natural stands during the early 1940’s
near Shelton, WA. Courtesy of the Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association.
|
|
Although some of the industry pioneers started to grow Norway spruce (Picea
abies) and Scot's pine (Pinus sylvestris) in Christmas tree
plantations during the early 1900s, more than 90% of the trees being harvested
in the late 1940s were still coming from forest stands (Fig. 1). In 1948, the top selling
trees were balsam fir (Abies balsamea), Douglas-fir, black (P. mariana)
and white spruce (P. glauca), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana) (2). These species were readily available from forests.
There have been a number of major changes in the Christmas tree industry in
the past 40 to 50 years. After World War II, increasing numbers of trees were
being planted in plantations and in the late 1940s and early 50s growers started
to shear trees to increase their density in response to consumer demands for
higher density trees (Fig. 2) (2, 24, 42). In the early 1980s some large growers began
using helicopters to transport trees from the field to their shipping yard to
increase the efficiency of harvest and minimize mechanical damage (Fig. 3).
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 2. Sheared trees display at a Pacific northwest grower meeting.
|
|
Fig. 3. Helicopters are used to increase harvest efficiency
and reduce mechanical damage to trees.
|
Fig. 4. Fraser fir plantation in North Carolina.
|
|
Today, over 95% of the Christmas trees harvested each year come from
plantations (Fig. 4) and the most common species are Douglas-fir, Fraser (A. fraseri),
noble (A. procera), and balsam firs, Scot's, Virginia (P. virginiana),
and white pines (P. monticola). Overall, the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and North Carolina produced about
60% of the trees harvested in the United States in 1999. Nationally, Oregon
ranks number 1, producing about 9 million trees per year, followed by North
Carolina at 7.5 million trees. Washington is tied with Michigan in third,
producing about 4 million trees per year (5, 54, 55). With improvements in transportation,
regional production is now shipped throughout the United States and trees are
exported Japan, China, Hong Kong, Philippines, Canada,
Mexico, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Samoa (54, 55).
Fig. 5. Pacific northwest trees being delivered
in Texas during early December.
|
|
In Europe today, Germany produces an estimated 19 million trees followed by
France at 9.2 million trees, Denmark at 8.5 million trees, Belgium at 5.2
million trees and the U.K. at 4.4 million trees (23). European consumers prefer
more open trees with layered branches. Christmas trees are still displayed for a
relatively short period of time right around Christmas and in some places,
candles are still used to illuminate trees (23, 29, 61, 62). Although
historically this was
also true in the United States, today consumers tend to prefer more dense trees
and start purchasing their trees shortly after Thanksgiving in late November (Fig.
5).
This means that trees have to be harvested earlier and last longer when they are
displayed indoors.
During the past 40 years, the market for real Christmas trees has faced stiff
competition from artificial trees (3, 4, 6, 24, 25, 42, 44, 50). While the total
number of all types of Christmas trees used by consumers has increased from
about 30 million trees in the late 1950s to 70 to 75 million trees today, the
total market for real trees has been flat. In 1960, about 31 million trees were
harvested. This has only increased to 33 to 36 million trees today, even though
the U. S. population and number of households have more than doubled. The
percentage of households using a real tree has declined from 73.5% in 1950 to
32.3% in 1995. People in the west are twice as likely to use a real tree
compared to people in the south central part of the nation.
In North America and Europe, there has been an increased emphasis on growing conifer species that have superior
postharvest needle and moisture retention characteristics (2, 23, 24, 29, 61, 62). In North
America, this has resulted in a tremendous increase in the production of noble and
Fraser fir. This shift has coincided with decreased production of Scot's pine,
and to a lesser extent, Douglas-fir. In Europe, the increased production of
Nordmann (A. nordmanniana) and noble fir is displacing Norway spruce in
their markets.
Fig. 6. Noble fir Christmas tree. (Click on image for larger
view).
|
|
Fig. 7. Fraser fir Christmas tree. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Noble and Fraser fir are generally considered to have the best postharvest
quality of any Christmas tree available today (14, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 51). When displayed in water at 20°C, these species can be expected to
maintain high moisture levels with very little needle loss for at least six
weeks. Noble fir (Fig. 6) is rapidly becoming the most important species grown as a Christmas
tree in the PNW (52, 53). This species grows naturally in the Cascade Mountains and
isolated locations within the Oregon Coast Range. Noble fir is found naturally
at elevations ranging from 610 to 1,220 meters (2,000 to 5,000 ft) above sea
level and can be successfully grown within the western portions of the PNW.
Efforts in the United States to grow this species outside of its native range have met with limited
success. Although Douglas-fir still accounts for about 45% of the total
production in the PNW, noble fir's share of the production has increased from
about 5% in 1969 to 45% of the harvested trees today or about 17% of the total
U.S. production (26, 54, 55, 56).
The production of Fraser fir in North Carolina has also increased
dramatically. Fraser fir (Fig. 7) is closely related to balsam fir and is native to high
elevations in the Appalachian Mountains in North Carolina. Most of the
plantations that produce Fraser fir in North Carolina are located at elevations
below 1200 meters (4,000 ft) and thus outside the areas of native stands. In
1970, 50% of the Christmas trees produced in North Carolina were Fraser firs. In
North Carolina today, Fraser fir accounts for about 96% of the production or
about 20% of the total U.S. production.
Typically, production of noble and Fraser fir Christmas trees requires a
total of 12 to15 years. Seed are sown in seedbeds and seedlings are grown for 2
years. The resulting seedlings are transplanted to 'line out' nursery beds for
one to three additional years (Fig. 8). Thus after 3 to 5 years, trees are large enough
to be transplanted to the plantation, where they grow into a 6- to 7-foot tall
Christmas tree in about 6 to 9 years.
|
Fig. 8. Production of noble fir seedlings.
|
|
With the increasing expansion of noble and Fraser fir plantings, growers are
facing a number of insect and disease problems including. Balsam twig aphid (Mindarus
abietinus), balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae), and the spruce
spider mite (Oligonychus ununguis) cause unsightly needle discoloration
and/or branch distortion and dieback (Figs. 9-15). When populations are very
high, balsam woolly adelgids can also kill Fraser fir trees (Fig. 16). The three major
diseases that currently limit the production and marketability of noble and Fraser fir
Christmas trees are Phytophthora root
rot and stem canker, current season needle necrosis (CSNN), and
interior needle blight.
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 9. Twisting of newly developing Fraser fir shoots
caused by balsam twig aphids. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Fig. 10. Balsam twig aphids on new Fraser fir growth.
Courtesy A. L. Antonelli. (Click image for larger
view). |
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 11. Fraser fir with swollen branch nodes and terminals
caused by balsam woolly adelgids. Photo courtesy of R. S. Byther. (Click image
for larger view). |
|
Fig. 12. Balsam woolly adelgids caused the downward curving
and branch flagging on this Fraser fir Christmas tree. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 13. Although difficult to find, the presence of white masses like these confirms the presence of balsam
woolly adelgids. Courtesy
of A. L. Antonelli. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 14. Severe spruce spider mite damage is often confined
to the needle bases along the stem. Courtesy of A. L. Antonelli. (Click image
for larger view).
|
|
|
|
Fig. 15. Distribution of red-colored spruce spider mite eggs along the
stem and needle bases. Courtesy of A. L. Antonelli. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Fig. 16. If not controlled, balsam woolly adelgids can
cause severe branch distortion and death of Fraser fir Christmas trees. (Click
image for larger view).
|
Phytophthora Root Rot and Stem Canker
Phytophthora root rot and stem canker is one of the most important diseases
of Abies species that are grown as Christmas trees. For example, root
rot, caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi, and to a lesser extent, P.
drechsleri and P. citricola, is a serious problem on Fraser fir in
nurseries and (Fig. 17) Christmas tree plantations in western North Carolina (9, 7, 30,
45, 57). Phytophthora cinnamomi also causes root rot on balsam fir in
North Carolina (41). Phytophthora citricola causes root rot of white fir
(A. concolor) and red fir (A. magnifica) in California (49). In
Michigan, P. cactorum and P. citricola have been shown to cause
root rot of Fraser fir, white fir, balsam fir, and noble fir seedlings in
nurseries (1). This disease also occurs on noble fir Christmas trees grown in
Ireland.
|
Fig. 17. Wilting and mortality of Phytophthora-inoculated
Fraser fir seedlings. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 18. Mortality of trees in a poorly drained area of field
caused by Phytophthora root rot. Courtesy
of C. Landgren. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
In the PNW and North Carolina this is the most important disease of noble and
Fraser fir Christmas tree production. As growers have tried to expand plantings
to lower elevations and heavier textured soils, losses from this disease can
reach 30% to 75% in unfavorable sites (Fig. 18) (8, 21). Because infested sites can no
longer be used to produce noble and Fraser fir, this disease severely limits the
ability of growers to increase the production of these species. Recent work in
North Carolina indicates that average industry-wide losses from Phytophthora
root rot are about 9% of the production in a given field or about $9 million
based on a $100 million industry (9).
Several species of Phytophthora are associated with serious diseases
of conifers in the PNW. Phytophthora cryptogea, P. cactorum, P.
gonapodyides, P. megasperma, P. pseudotsugae, and P.
cinnamomi cause damage to a wide range of conifer seedlings in Oregon,
Washington, and British Columbia bareroot nurseries (31, 32, 34). These species,
along with P. cambivora and P. citricola, have also been
associated with a root rot and stem canker disease of noble fir in Christmas
tree plantations (18, 19, 21).
Feeder roots of Fraser fir are infected initially by zoospores of Phytophthora
spp. Roots typically will develop a reddish brown discoloration of the cambium
region, which particularly on noble fir may extend up the stem (Fig. 19) as the pathogen
colonizes the root system. As large roots are killed, above ground symptoms
associated with Phytophthora root rot and stem canker develop, including chlorosis of
foliage, wilting of new growth, branch flagging, stunting, and death of the tree
(Fig. 20 and 21). Needles on branches and trees killed by Phytophthora root rot have a
distinctive reddish-brown appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 19. Phytophthora-caused stem canker extending up
the side of a noble fir tree. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Fig. 20. Noble fir branch flagging due to Phytophthora
infection. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 21. Noble fir tree killed by Phytophthora root rot.
(Click image for larger view).
|
In some situations, Phytophthora species also cause shoot blight.
Initial symptoms associated with shoot blight consist of a reddening of the
needles at the tips of the shoots during late spring and early summer. The wood
beneath the bark is medium brown with a distinct margin between the dead and
healthy tissue. Affected branches can occur anywhere on the tree and the infection can spread down
into the
stem of the tree.
Saturated soils favor the development of this disease. Phytophthora
species produce sporangia (Fig. 22) that release swimming zoospores. These spores are
attracted to nearby elongating or wounded roots where they encyst, germinate,
and infect the root. Near saturated soil conditions are needed for germination,
and dispersal of zoospores. Root infection is progressive and eventually leads
to above ground foliar symptoms. Shoot blight can occur when growers use
contaminated irrigation water to overhead irrigate trees or when overhead
irrigation splashes infested soil onto the lower branches of the tree (49). Some
Phytophthora species produce resting spores [chlamydospores (Fig. 23) and/or
oospores] in the infected roots that enable the fungus to survive for extended
periods of time in the soil. Phytophthora spores may also spread within a
field in surface runoff (Fig. 24) or in irrigation water from ponds, streams, and rivers
(43, 63).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 22. Phytophthora cinnamomi sporangium.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 23. Phytophthora cinnamomi
chlamydospore. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
|
Fig. 24. Missing Fraser fir trees resulting from Phytophthora inoculum spreading down hill with water.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
The high susceptibility of many firs to Phytophthora root rot limits where
these trees can be grown. Noble, balsam, grand (A. grandis), red, Fraser,
and Shasta firs (A. magnifica var. shastensis) are among the more
susceptible species, whereas Turkish (A. bornmuelleriana), European
silver (A. alba), Veitch (A. veitchii), Nordmann, Momi (A. momi),
and Korean firs (A. koreana) tend to be much less susceptible (10, 11,
22, 19, 31). There is also considerable variation in the ability of the
different Phytophthora species to cause disease. In general, P.
cinnamomi, P. cryptogea, and P. citricola tend to be more
aggressive than the other species.
The use of healthy transplant seedlings and site selection are the most
important cultural factors affecting the management of Phytophthora root rot and
stem canker in plantations (46, 58). Highly susceptible firs should not be
planted on sites with heavy, poorly drained soils (33). Avoiding the use of
overhead irrigation, particularly if the water is contaminated with Phytophthora
inoculum, will prevent shoot blight.
Fig. 25. Installing drain tiles prior to planting helps
reduce Phytophthora root rot and stem canker problems in plantations. (Click
image for larger view).
|
|
Soil fumigation is commonly used in bareroot nurseries for transplant
production to control Phytophthora root rot (35, 47). Fumigation in combination
with spring and late-summer applications of selective fungicides has been highly
successful in production of healthy transplants when combined with cultural
practices and sanitation. Growers can alleviate high soil moisture conditions
that favor disease development at some sites by installing drain tiles (Fig.
25). Soil
fumigation is seldom used in Christmas tree plantations. Applications of
selective fungicides have not generally been effective in controlling this
disease on noble or Fraser fir in plantations in the PNW or North Carolina
because of the difficulty in providing the volume of water needed to effectively
drench the root zone of large trees and the need to make repeated applications.
Although noble and Fraser fir are highly susceptible to Phytophthora root
rot, there is considerable variation in the susceptibility Abies spp. to
this disease. One potential option to minimize the impact of this disease in
sites that are conducive to its development is to plant a species like Turkish
or Momi fir that are less susceptible than noble or Fraser fir. Studies would
have to be conducted to determine if these species have suitable horticultural
characteristics for use as Christmas trees and determine if they have the
excellent needle and moisture retention characteristics that are needed in
today's market. Growers might also use less susceptible species as a rootstock
for species such as noble and Fraser fir so they could grow these species in
sites that are conducive to Phytophthora root rot (60).
Current Season Needle Necrosis
In addition to Phytophthora root rot and stem canker, there are two
additional diseases that limit the production and marketability of high quality
noble fir Christmas trees in the PNW. Current season needle necrosis (CSNN) is a
poorly understood physiological disorder that occurs on noble and grand fir (A.
grandis) Christmas trees grown throughout production areas in western
Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (15, 20). CSNN also occurs on noble fir
in Ireland and Denmark. In Denmark, the condition is also referred to as "røde
nåle på nobilis" (red needles on noble fir).
In the PNW, initial symptoms of CSNN appear on current season needles during
early June. Symptoms consist of tan discolored bands (Fig. 26). In some cases, the area of
discoloration expands and involves the distal portion of needles or the entire
needle. The incidence of symptomatic needles increases rapidly during June and
July. Damaged portions of needles turn reddish-brown in color by mid summer (Fig.
27).
|
Fig. 26. Initial symptoms of CSNN during late June. (Click
image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 27. Symptoms of CSNN during late summer. (Click image
for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 28. High incidence of CSNN damaged needles in the top of a tree.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
Unlike grand fir, where symptomatic needles are distributed throughout the
tree, branches in the upper portion of noble fir trees can have twice as many
symptomatic needles compared to branches in the middle and bottom portion of
trees (Fig. 28). CSNN damage is strongly related to site, being more severe at low
elevation offsite locations, which are typical of many Christmas tree plantings
in the PNW. There is also considerable variation in disease development on trees
in different areas within a given site. Growers' observations indicate that CSNN
is less of a problem at higher elevation sites and in natural stands. Growers
have also associated initial symptom development with high temperatures and certain trees tend to show symptoms year after year.
Although the etiology is unknown, studies have shown that shading trees or
foliar applications of calcium chloride during shoot elongation significantly
reduce the incidence of symptomatic needles (20). These studies suggest that
calcium deficiency may in part contribute to this disease. Although foliar
applications of calcium chloride are effective in reducing the incidence of this
disorder on both noble and grand fir, this treatment cannot be recommended as a
management tool because of phytotoxicity associated with the rates and multiple
number of applications required to reduce disease levels (20).
Fig. 29. Grafted tree with CSNN symptoms on susceptible scion branches (upper) and no symptoms on resistant rootstock branches (lower).
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
There is increasing evidence from the PNW and Denmark that the development of
CSNN is under strong genetic control (Fig. 29). In Denmark, Christmas tree geneticist U.
B. Nielsen has found that noble fir provenances from
Oregon and Washington were much more prone to CSNN than highly selected Danish
provenances (personal communication). Seed from noble fir trees in the Riley/Fanno area near Mary's Peak
in the Oregon coast range have been shown to consistently produce high quality
Christmas trees over a range of sites in the PNW (12, 13, 27, 28, 48). Recent
research has also shown that there is considerable variation in the
susceptibility of different families of trees from this seed source to CSNN
(17). There was also a significant correlation between the percentage of
unmarketable progeny trees due to CSNN and the CSNN ratings of the mother trees,
indicating that it should be possible to breed for trees with resistance to CSNN.
Fig. 30. CSNN on noble fir tree with blue colored foliage.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
There has been some speculation that the limited susceptibility of the Danish
provenances is somehow related to their dark blue coloration. This appears to be
unlikely since the highly susceptible Riley/Fanno parents in the seed orchard
also exhibited mature dark blue foliage characteristics similar to that which is
associated with the highly selected Danish provenances (Fig. 30).
Very little information is currently available regarding the effect of
cultural practices with respect to this disorder. Data collected during a
7-year-long fertilization study indicates that fertilization with Urea-Sul
(which is a blend of urea and ammonium sulfate and has a 33-0-0-12 analysis) or
Sul-Po-Mag (which is also known as K-Mag and is a combination of sulfur,
potassium and magnesium with a 22-22-11 S-K20-Mg0 analysis) did not affect the
level of CSNN which developed on the noble fir Christmas trees in these studies
(17).
Studies relating to the etiology and management of this disease are currently
underway in Ireland and the PNW. The development of procedures to induce CSNN
under controlled conditions would make it possible to utilize seed obtained from
controlled crosses between CSNN susceptible and resistant parents in seed
orchards to obtain additional information concerning the genetic control of this
important disorder of noble fir Christmas trees. Studies are currently underway
to examine the possibility of reducing the severity of this disease with foliar
applications of other types of calcium-based materials and a plant growth
hormone called Conicur, which contains 2-hydroxypropanoic acid.
Interior Needle Blight Syndrome
Interior needle blight is the most important needle cast disease of noble fir
Christmas trees (15). With the increased production of noble fir in the PNW,
this disease is becoming more common. Trees affected by this disease are
generally unmarketable. In 1998, one grower lost an estimated $1.4 million
dollars because of damage caused by this disease. Although several fungi can be
associated with diseased needles, an undescribed species of a Mycosphaerella-like
fungus is most commonly found on diseased needles.
Symptoms of this disease are most prominent during late summer and fall. They
consist of random browning of older needles, mostly on lower branches.
Eventually, all of the needles except the current season growth can be damaged
(Figs. 31 and 32).
This disease also occurs on grand fir in the PNW (Figure 33). Initially, symptomatic needles
tend to remain firmly attached to the branch. Small black fungal fruiting bodies
are present on the undersides of the needles. Although this disease occurs most
commonly on larger trees, it can occur on young trees, particularly when they
are inter planted among older diseased trees (Figure 34). Observations suggest that Fraser fir are resistant to this disease.
Fig. 31. Interior needle blight symptoms on a severely diseased noble fir.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 32. Extensive development of interior needle blight
symptoms on older noble fir needles. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 33. Interior needle blight symptoms on a severely
diseased grand fir. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Fig. 34. Interior needle blight development on a young
noble fir tree inter-planted among older diseased trees. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
The Mycosphaerella-like fungus associated with symptomatic needles
produces partly erumpent, black pseudothecia and ascospores that are hyaline,
fusiform, 1-septate, and slightly constricted at the septum. Phaeocryptopus nudus,
Phyllosticta abietina, Toxosporium spp., and Rhizosphaera
spp. are sometimes also found on symptomatic needles. It is unclear whether
all of these fungi cause disease, or whether some of these fungi are endophytes
or simply infest necrotic needles that have died from some other factor(s).
Fig. 35. Removal of lower branches has no effect on subsequent
development of interior needle blight. (Click image for larger
view).
|
|
Little information is available about factors that affect disease
development. The disease appears most commonly on trees in areas of plantations
where air movement is poor, and/or in plantations that experience extended
periods of free moisture on needles during the spring. Trees adjacent to tall
timber or in plantations with poor weed control are examples of sites that
appear to favor disease development. Attempts by growers to salvage trees by
removing the branches on the lower portions of trees have not been successful
(Figure 35).
Applications of chlorothalonil during shoot elongation have provided
effective control of this disease, suggesting that infections occur on the new
growth shortly after it emerges from the buds (16). Based on fungicide studies,
there also appears to be a very long incubation period with this disease. The
benefits of fungicide treatments are not evident for at least 16 to 18 months.
Under high disease pressure, chlorothalonil has been the only fungicide that provides
effective control of this disease (Fig. 36 and 37). Unfortunately, when high-pressure sprayers
are used or conditions do not favor rapid drying of the spray on the needles,
applications of this fungicide can result in needle yellowing and/or the
development of necrotic flecks on the needles.
|
Fig. 36. Limited disease development on a tree sprayed with
chlorothalonil. (Click image for larger view).
|
|
Fig. 37. Extensive interior needle blight development on an unsprayed tree.
(Click image for larger view).
|
|
For growers to minimize the impact of interior needle blight on the
production of noble fir in the PNW, additional studies are needed relating to
the etiology and epidemiology of this disease. Studies are also needed to
identify alternatives to chlorothalonil-based products that are effective in
controlling this disease.
The Future
Since the use of Christmas trees plays such an important role in the cultures
of many people, demand will remain strong for species of Christmas trees like
noble and Fraser fir that have excellent needle and moisture retention
characteristics. Even though there are many innovative and successful noble and
Fraser fir Christmas tree growers, Phytophthora
root rot, CSNN, and interior needle blight are currently limiting the ability to meet the demand for these trees. Emphasis on production of healthy
transplants coupled with careful site selection will help growers limit the
damage caused by some of these diseases. Growers may also eventually utilize
innovative approaches such as grafting noble and Fraser fir to rootstocks that
are resistant to Phytophthora root rot. Long-term solutions to Phytophthora root
rot and CSNN will no doubt come through breeding programs for disease resistance
such as those that are underway in North Carolina and the PNW.
References
1. Adams, G. C., Jr. and Bielenin, A. 1988. First report of Phytophthora
cactorum and P. citricola. Plant Disease 72:79 (abstract).
2. Albers, H. H., and Davis, A. K. 1997. The wonderful world of Christmas
trees. 100 pages. Mid-Prairie Books, Parkersburg, Iowa.
3. Anonymous. 1996. Gallup poll shows real tree use surged in 1995.
American Christmas Tree J. 40(2):13.
4. Anonymous. 1999. NCTA public opinion survey supplies upbeat information.
Christmas Tree Lookout 32(2):22-24.
5. Anonymous. 1999. Christmas trees rank high in Oregon. Christmas Tree
Lookout 32(3): 8.
6. Baumann, D. 1996. The Gallup poll revisited. American Christmas Tree J.
40(3):5-6.
7. Benson, D. M., and L. F. Grand. 1999. Disease incidence of Phytophthora
root rot of Fraser fir in North Carolina. Phytopathology 89:S6
8. Benson, D. M., and L. F. Grand. 2000. Incidence of Phytophthora root rot
of Fraser fir in North Carolina and sensitivity of isolates of Phytophthora
cinnamomi to metalaxyl. Plant Dis. 84:661-664.
9. Benson, D. M., Grand, L. F., and Suggs, E. G. 1976. Root rot of Fraser fir
caused by Phytophthora drechsleri. Plant Dis. Rep. 60:238-240.
10. Benson, D. M., Hinesley, L. E., Frampton, J., and Parker, K. C. 1997.
Evaluation of six Abies spp. to Phytophthora root rot caused by Phytophthora
cinnamomi. APS Biological and Cultural Tests 13:57.
11. Benson, D. M., Hinesley, L. E., and Parker, K. C. 1997. Evaluation of
Canaan seed sources for resistance to Phytophthora root rot caused by Phytophthora
cinnamomi. APS Biological and Cultural Tests 13:58.
12. Brown, K. 1990. A few outstanding noble fir Christmas trees. Christmas
Tree Lookout 23(3):22-23.
13. Brown, K. and Landgren, C. 1995. Results of the second noble fir
Christmas tree provenance test. Christmas Tree Lookout 28(1):10-15.
14. Chastagner, G. A. 1990. Keeping cut trees fresh: A summary of tree
keepability research at Washington State University. Christmas Tree Outlook
23(3):32-44.
15. Chastagner, G. A (Ed). 1997. Christmas Tree Diseases, Insects, and
Disorders in the Pacific Northwest: Identification and Management. 156pp.
MISC01886. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, WA
99164-5912.
16. Chastagner, G. A and Staley, J. M. 1995. Fungicidal control of interior
needle blight syndrome on noble fir Christmas trees. Phytopathology 85:1038
(Abstract)
17. Chastagner, G. A. and Landgren, C. 1998. Genetic variation and the
influence of fertilization on the development of current season needle
necrosis on noble fir Christmas trees. pp 219-226. In: Laflamme, G., J.
A. Berube, and R. C. Hamelin (Eds). Foliage, shoot and stem diseases of trees.
Proceedings of the IUFRO WP 7.02.02 meeting, Quebec City, May 25-31, 1997.
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Sainte-Foy, Quebec. 272 p.
18. Chastagner, G. A, Hamm, P. B., and Byther, R. S. 1990. Symptomology of
Phytophthora root and stem canker disease on Noble fir in the Pacific
Northwest. Phytopathology 80:877.
19. Chastagner, G. A., Riley, K. L., and Hamm, P. B. 1990. Susceptibility of Abies
spp. to seven Phytophthora spp. Phytopathology 80:887.
20. Chastagner, G. A., Staley, J. M. and Riley, K. L. 1990. Current season
needle necrosis: A needle disorder of unknown etiology on noble and grand fir
Christmas trees in the Pacific Northwest. pp 38-42 In Merrill, W. and
M.E, Ostry (Eds). Recent research on foliage diseases, conference proceedings,
Gen Tech. Rep. Wo-56 Washington, D.C., USDA Forest Service. 145p.
21. Chastagner, G. A, Hamm, P. B., and Riley, K. L. 1995. Symptoms and Phytophthora
spp associated with root rot and stem canker of noble fir Christmas trees in
the Pacific Northwest. Plant Dis. 79:290-293.
22. Cooley, S. J., Hamm, P. B. and Hansen, E. M. 1988. Susceptibility of
Northwest conifers to Phytophthora root rot. Tree Planters' Notes 40:15-18.
23. Davidson, E. 1999. Ten day visit provides revealing snapshot of Irish
tree business. Christmas Tree Lookout 32(2):30-32.
24. Davis, A. K. 1996. The history of the Christmas tree industry in North
America. American Christmas Tree J. 40(4):5-11.
25. Drake, S. 1999. Gallup poll registers success…points direction for
promotion. American Christmas Tree J. 43(2):26-28.
26. Douglas, B. S. 1983. Report on the 1982 marketing season. Northwest
Lookout 16(2):2-6.
27. Douglas, B. S. 1984. How much influence does seed origin have on noble
fir growth performance. Northwest Lookout 17(3):16-18.
28. Douglas, B. 1991. Winter-hardy noble fir seed sources. Christmas Tree
Lookout 24(1):6-8.
29. Frampton, J., and McKinley, C. 1999. Christmas trees and greenery in
Denmark – Production and tree improvement. American Christmas Tree J. 43(2):
4-11.
30. Grand, L. F. and Lapp, N. A. 1974. Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot of
Fraser fir in North Carolina. Plant Dis. Rept. 58:318-320.
31. Hamm, P. B. and Hansen, E. M. 1982. Pathogenicity of Phytophthora
spp. to Northwest conifers. Eur. J. For. Pathology 12:167-174.
32. Hamm, P. B. and Hansen, E. M. 1987. Identification of Phytophthora
spp known to attack conifers in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science
61:103-109.
33. Hamm, P. B., Campbell, S. J. and Hansen, E. M. 1990. Growing healthy
seedlings: Identification and management of pests in Northwest forest
nurseries. Forest. Res. Lab. Special Publ. 19, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,
100p
34. Hamm, P. B. and Hansen, E. M. 1991. The isolation and identification of
Phytophthora species causing damage in bare-root conifer nurseries. Pp
169-179. In: Sutherland, J. R. and Glover, S. G., eds. Diseases and insects in
forest nurseries. Proc. IUFRO Working Party S2.07-09. For. Can. Pac. Yukon
Reg. Info. Rep. BC-X-331.
35. Hansen, E. 1997. Diseases in special settings: Forest Tree Nurseries.
Pp 88 In: E. M. Hansen and K. J. Lewis (Edt.) Compendium of Conifer Diseases.
APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
36. Hinesley, L. E. 1984. Measuring freshness of cut Fraser fir Christmas
trees. HortScience 19(6):860-862.
37. Hinesley, L. E. 1990. Grower postharvest handling of Christmas trees.
N. C. Coop. Ext. Serv., Christmas Tree Notes, CTN-015. 2 pp.
38. Hinesley, L. E. and Huxster, Jr., W. T. 1991. Retail merchandising of
North Carolina Fraser fir. N. C. Coop. Ext. Serv., Christmas Tree Notes,
CTN-017. 3 pp.
39. Hinesley, E. and Chastagner, G. 1993. Common myths and questions: the
handling and care of cut Christmas trees. Amer. Christmas Tree J. 37(4):16-19.
40. Hinesley, L. E. and Snelling, L. K. 1994. Postharvest drying of Leyland
cypress, eastern red cedar, and Fraser fir Christmas trees. HortScience
30:1427-1428.
41. Kenerley, C. and Bruck, R. I. 1981. Phytophthora root rot of Balsam fir
and Norway spruce in North Carolina. Plant Disease 65:614-615.
42. Kerwin, J. 1994. A New Yorker searches for the most imperfect perfect
Christmas tree. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Soc.Green Scene 23(2):4-7.
43. Kleijunas, J. T. and Ko, W. H. 1976. Dispersal of Phytophthora
cinnamomi on the island of Hawaii. Phytopathology 66:457-460.
44. Koelling, M. R. 1999. Assuring there will be customers for real trees.
American Christmas Tree J. 43(1):26-31.
45. Kuhlman, E. G. and Hendrix, Jr., F. F. 1963. Phytophthora root rot of
Fraser fir. Plant Dis. Rep. 47:552-553.
46. Kuhlman, E. G., Grand, L. F. and Hansen, E. M. 1989. Phytophthora root
rot of conifers. pp 60-61 In: C. E. Cordell, R. L. Anderson, W. H. Hoffard, T.
D. Landis, R. S. Smith, Jr., and H. V. Toko. Forest Nursery Pests, US Forest
Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 680
47. Landis, T. D. and Campbell, S. J. 1991. Soil fumigation in bareroot
tree nurseries. Pp 191-205. In: Sutherland, J. R. and Glover, S. G., eds.
Diseases and insects in forest nurseries. Proc. IUFRO Working Party S2.07-09.
For. Can. Pac. Yukon Reg. Info. Rep. BC-X-331.
48. Landgren, C. 1999. The continuing quest for better nobles: results from
ongoing progeny testing. Christmas Tree Lookout 32(3):32-37.
49. McCain, A.H. and Scharpf, R. F. 1986. Phytophthora shoot blight and
canker disease of Abies spp. Plant Disease 70:1036-1037.
50. McKinley, C. R. 1998. Where is the industry going? American Christmas
Tree J. 42(4):37-40.
51. Mitcham-Butler, E. J., Hinesley, L. E. and Pharr, D. M. 1988. Effects
of harvest date and storage temperature on the postharvest needle retention of
Fraser fir branches. J. Environ. Hort. 6(1):1-4.
52. Nanny, B. 1986. Noble fir: That mysterious, difficult, and beautiful
Christmas tree. Northwest Lookout 19(3):10-12.
53. Nanny, B. 1997. Looking to the future: What's ahead for the Christmas
tree industry? Christmas Tree Lookout 30(1):17-19.
54. National Christmas Tree Association. 1999. Website. St. Louis, MO;
55. Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association. 1999. Website. Salem, OR
56. Proebsting, W. M. 1983. Harvest and planting rates of Christmas trees in
Oregon. Northwest Lookout 16(2):20-22.
57. Shew, H. D. and Benson, D. M. 1982. Fraser fir root rot induced by Phytophthora
citricola. Plant Dis. 65:688-689.
58. Sidebottom, J. R., and Jones, R. 1999. Control of Phytophthora root rot
in Fraser fir Christmas trees. North Carolina Cooperative Ext. Ser. CTN022 ,
4p.
59. Tompkins, D. 1986. A trip back into time with Paul Kirk. Northwest
Lookout 19(3): 14-18.
60. Tompkins, D. 1989. Grafting noble fir: a 16 year experiment. Northwest
Lookout 22(3): 10-12, 16-17.
61. Tompkins, D. 1999. An English "Christmas World". American
Christmas Tree J. 43(4): 27-31.
62. Tompkins, D. 1999. Growing trees by computer and other innovations from
England. American Christmas Tree J. 43(4):32-34.
63. Von Broembsen, S. 1984. Distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi
in rivers of the South Western Cape Province. Phytophylactica 16:227-229.
|