This presentation will show that Ailanthus altissima is easy to kill by a volunteer safe chemical method. At the same time a naturally occurring bioeradication system has been observed that is effectively killing Ailanthus altissima. This serves as a model for finding bioeradication systems for other invasive non-native organisms and ending the scientifically unsound practice of introducing more non-native organisms to control current problems only to become problems themselves.

1. Thoughts on Ailanthus altissima:
biological and chemical eradication
methods

2. Richard Gardner
rtgardner3@yahoo.com
(410) 726-3045

3. This and other presentations can be found at:
http://www.slideshare.net/rtgardner3

4. ABSTRACT: This presentation will show that Ailanthus
altissima is easy to kill by a volunteer safe chemical
method. At the same time a naturally occurring
bioeradication system has been observed that is
effectively killing Ailanthus altissima. This serves as a
model for finding bioeradication systems for other
invasive non-native organisms and ending the
scientifically unsound practice of introducing more
non-native organisms to control current problems only
to become problems themselves.

5. Foundation Concept: Bioeradication

6. Classical biocontrol – the introduction of non-native
organisms in the attempt to reduce the effects of
other introduced non-native organisms on
ecosystems. At the same time there are unforeseen
negative effects which cannot be predicted in the
local and extra-local ecosystems through genetic
and/or behavioral changes in the non-native
biocontrol, the target organism and native
organisms.
There is an average of 2.44 introduced organisms for
every species on which control is being attempted. I
think this number is underestimated and that the
real number is at least 5 introduced organisms for
every biocontrol target, probably higher.

7. Bioeradication – The extinction of a non-native
(invasive) species from an ecosystem using
native organisms. The goal is the regeneration
of the ecosystem by eliminating the non-native
problem from the ecosystem using native
organisms. This eliminates the potential
problems associated with the addition of non-
native organisms as potential controls.

8. Bioeradicant/Bioeradicant system – Any native
organism or organism system in any time frame
from seconds to centuries that partially or fully
inhibits a non-native organism and helps drive it
to extinction.

9. Direct bioeradication – The use of a native
organism or native organism system as a
bioeradicant for a specific organism by
increasing its population through introduction of
more of the bioeradicant.

10. Indirect bioeradication – Providing the native
natural resources such as food sources, breeding
sites or shelter needed for a bioeradicant or
bioeradicant system to develop at a specific
location for a specific organism. This may be
nectar sources, sheltering plants, mutualistic
fungi, water source or … for any life stage.

11. Bioremediation – the use of native organisms to
displace and eradicate non-native organisms
while replacing them as they are eliminated
from an ecosystem in order to restore that
ecosystem to its original state.
An example is adding Solidago canadensis to a
field with Ailanthus altissima to attract adult
Atteva aurea.

12. Known Bioeradicants for
Ailanthus altissima:
Atteva aurea
Aculops ailanthii
Fusarium lateritium
Fusarium oxysporum
Verticillium albo-atrum

13. Bioeradicant system for
Ailanthus altissima:
Atteva aurea
Aculops ailanthii
Fusarium oxysporum
Solidago canadensis
Rudbeckia laciniata

14. Ailanthus altissima

15. Physiology

18. The left fork of this
trees was poisoned
about 2 weeks before
this photograph. This
slide shows the basic
vascular structure of
Ailanthus is vertical
with little horizontal
structure due to its
fast growth.

19. Male trees – single clean peduncles

20. Female tree – elaborate branching peduncles and
seeds.
peduncles
peduncles
with seeds

21. Our Heroes at work:
Atteva aurea and Aculops ailanthii

30. larvae
eggs
pupa shell
Multigenerational web

35. Aculops ailanthii, an eriophyoid mite.

37. Aculops ailanthi on an A. altissima leaf.

41. Diseased trees

43. Stand of A. altissima in July 2011 in Urbana, MD. This is three years
after my research was completed. Originally this stand was thriving.

46. The apparent key to Ailanthus eradication
by natural means is to plant native flowers
nearby with compact inflorescences that
bloom in succession from late spring to
hard freeze as nectar sources for adult
Atteva aurea.
In the spring this may be forest trees and
shrubs such as the American Chestnut and
Mountain Laurel. After that time the
Asteraceae and other families are good
nectar sources.

48. Rudbeckia laciniata

49. Verbesina alternifolia

50. Monarda fistulosa

51. Leucanthemum sp.

52. Solidago sp.

53. Other plants I am looking at:
Lonicera japonica – insects and disease
Lonicera maacki – insects and disease
Lonicera morrowii – insects and disease
Microstegium vimineum - disease
Rosa multiflora – mites and disease
Insect I am looking at:
Halyomorpha halys – birds and
disease

54. Chemical Control:
Drill and Fill

55. This method is best during non-
dormancy.

56. Materials:
heavy duty cordless drill
spare battery packs for drill
3/8” drill bit
marker
measuring tape
spray bottle filled with 50.2%
Roundup™ (purple cap)
goggles
nitrile gloves

57. Drill a 3/8” hole 1” to 2” deep every 2”
of girth at comfortable working height.
A drill bit will get stuck if the holes are more
than about 2” due to the stickiness of the sap.

58. 3/8” drill holes @ every 2” apart

59. Then spray 50.2% glyphosate (purple
cap RoundUp™) into the holes.

60. Within a week the leaves will begin
wilting and yellowing.

61. Within 2 weeks the leaves will begin
falling.

62. Day 0. I did this “as a volunteer” to test the robustness of the
method.

63. Two weeks after injection.

64. End of summer.

65. Day 0, five trunks with DBH from 8” to 44”.

66. About 2 weeks after injection.

67. October in the same year.

68. October 2015,
3 years later.

71. Fluid flow is along a strip @
2” wide from the injection to
the apical meristems in the
roots and branches.

72. The four sure signs of tree death are:
1.) no green layer under the bark
when scraped.
2.) white fungi growing around the
outside of the tree.
3.) loose/peeling bark.
4.) Euwallacea validus* leaves tubes of
white frass on the outside of the tree.
*E. validus is the result of the tree being weakened by
disease or poison, not the agent of disease spread.

73. It is essential that all dead trees
around trails, roads and buildings be
cut down within six months of dying.

74. Several trees poisoned in January and
June 2012 fell in late October with
Hurricane Sandy. The break point was
the row of drill holes.

75. Due to its exceptional growth rate
Ailanthus does not develop the
internal structures denser trees
develop which give them strength.

76. Once it dies, the tree may fall and
decompose swiftly.

77. This method is most efficient when the
tree is not in dormancy. During
dormancy when the amount of brush
is diminished and biting insects are not
present, drill around the base of the
tree with a long drill bit, treat all
obvious roots and monitor for clones
over next 2 growing seasons.

78. Method advantages:

79. 1.) It does not use sharp objects. This
reduces the potential for injury,
especially among volunteers.

80. 2.) All the materials can be found
relatively inexpensively in most
hardware stores.

81. 3.) Feedback is fast and can be
watched as it develops. The results
begin to show in less than two weeks
with complete defoliation of trees
often in less than three weeks.

82. 4.) Less spillage of herbicide and hence
less collateral damage.

83. 5.) This method appears to be robust
and may work on other woody
invasive plants such as Lonicera
morrowii, Lonicera maackii,
Broussonetia papyrifera, Eleagnus
umbellate.

84. Walk more,
Tinker less.

85. Richard Gardner
rtgardner3@yahoo.com
http://www.slideshare.net/rtgardner3

86. Appendix of Bioeradication theory

87. Populationor
concentration
Non-native specialist
biocontrol
Non-native invasive
Chemical defenses of
non-native invasive
population
time
This diagram demonstrates what happens when a non-native
specialist biocontrol is reintroduced to its non-native host.
European parsnip, Pastinaca sativa, apparently did this.

88. Population
Non-native biocontrol
Non-native invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invader
time
A simplified diagram of the probable scenario of what
happens when a non-native biocontrol is introduced.

89. Population
Non-native
biocontrols
Pioneer non-native
invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invasive
time
Secondary non-native invasives
This is a more complex version of what is expected when a
non-native plant is introduced followed by its non-native
biocontrol. The native system collapses allowing secondary
non-natives to enter.
Native organisms

90. Population
Native bioeradicant
Non-native invasive
Native congeners of
non-native invader
time
The expected population curves for native
bioeradicant use. There is a baseline population for
native organisms which changes as the native
biocontrols adapt to the non-native invasive.

91. Applying Biotic Resistance in reverse, an introduced specialist
biocontrol is apt to prefer defenseless closely related natives
over the exotic it was brought in to control because the exotic
already has defenses against the biocontrol. Therefore, it is
safer to use a conservative non-exotic bioeradication
approach than risk an ecosystem with an outside specialist as
a potential disastrous biocontrol.

92. Known non-native invasive species where biocontrol has
gone rogue:
Rhinocyllus conicus: jumped from the non-native Canada thistle, Cirsium
arvense, it was introduced to control to native thistles in the Cirsium
genus (Louda,1997). That both the native and non-native are the same
genus should have served as a warning that the introduced R. conicus
was apt to jump to a native in the same genus instead of exclusively
feeding on its intended host.
Cactoblastis cactorum: imported to the Caribbean to control prickly
pear cacti, Opuntia ficus-indica; arrived in the U.S. naturally or in cargo
imported from the Caribbean (Johnson and Stiling 1998)
Successful bioeradicant:
Euhrychiopsis lecontei is a weevil that has been investigated as a
potential biocontrol agent for Eurasian water milfoil. It is found in the
eastern and central United States and western Canada.

93. Draft: Our Roman/Christian Heritage: The Demon in Science
The demon in Science is our Roman/Christian heritage. It has hindered science, misled
scientists, caused enormous amounts of bad data and corrupted the meaning of science. This
heritage has changed basic observation into engineering and scientists into engineers. It has
caused problem solving where no problem existed while giving answers which are superfluous
and misleading to these solved non-existent problems. It makes us impatient and results
oriented where patience and understanding are called for. We attempt to understand
phenomena in days or weeks instead of years, decades and possibly lifetimes. We have changed
from observers to tinkerers. We design experiments before fully observing and understanding
the system about which we are experimenting. Then we call this data valid and use it as the
basis of future experimentation.
Our Christian heritage constantly shouts at us that we live in an inherently flawed world that
the godly need to bring to godliness. At the same time it puts us at the center of creation by
being the last and ultimate of God’s creations. The “heresy” of Galileo was that he took humans
out the center of the universe and made them a piece of creation, not the ultimate part of it.
The shock that humanity is not the ultimate center and purpose of creation still reverberates in
science, engineering, religion, politics, economics and other sectors of human existence.

94. Our Roman heritage is the need to engineer the world in the same way the Romans
engineered their world. The Romans were great engineers as is obvious by their monuments,
buildings, roads and other infrastructure to control their world and the people in it. There was
little they did not tamper with. They even tried to control their gods!
Roman Christianity is mechanistic, full of formulaic prayers and rituals, i.e. religious
engineering. This is easily seen in the written constitutions (rules) of the various monastic sects
such as the Rule of St. Benedict. It is even seen in the prayers which attempt to engineer
“salvation” and hence God. In the extreme, sects of Roman based Christianity hope to engineer
their way into physical prosperity and eternity by extreme ritualistic/legalistic codes of behavior.
Our philosophers talk about what we are and how we define ourselves as humans. Seldom do
they define us as a small part of the natural world. Either they ignore the natural world in their
definition of humanity or they teach us that the natural world revolves around us, created for
our benefit. This makes us egotistical narcissists who have a hard time leaving an engineered
environment for one that is unchanged from its natural condition and in which we are a small,
often flawed, component.

95. The intersection of these psychological forces is that in Western Science we are always intent
on engineering an answer to an often non-existent problem rather than understanding what we
are engineering. The issue is amply evidenced in the barrage of projects and products coming
from science which attempt to make the world or at least our part of it “better”. Whether it is
medicine, ecology, food or agriculture we are intent on using “science” to change the world in
some way rather than understand it. It has taken a heavy toll on our world and everything in it.
Reductionism is one of the worst aspects of our need to engineer the world to save it. We take
an almost infinite set of variables, reducing it down to one or two we think we can understand.
For some reason we act as if our limited minds can understand systems nearly infinitely complex
through a couple obvious and easily tested factors. Even our bodies, which are the most basic
level of science understanding, are too complex for us to fully understand. Now try applying
reductionist science where there are many more bodies and conditions. It is not possible to get
even a minimal understanding of the complexity without several lifetimes of observation. This is
what we are taught is science.
We have fled from the basics of Science, the understanding of our world. Instead, we have
become engineers. A couple years ago when I was hiking near Port Clinton I talked with a
forester. He was marking striped maple trees for cutting to “correct” the balance of trees in the
forest. More recently as I was looking at the Penn State Biology program, instead of seeing basic
Classical Biology, I saw mostly biotech and bioengineering. This is not science! Classical Biology
is Science in that it is based on observation to understand natural phenomena, not alter and
destroy them.

96. In medicine, we are always at war with diseases, many of which are not diseases but lifestyle or
environmental issues. The cure for many of these diseases is obvious if we take the time to look
and think. Type II Diabetes for most of us is about lifestyle changes – getting off our fat asses
and walking, pushing away from the dinner table, eating whole foods and avoiding highly
processed foods. It is not about a new miracle food or ingredient, device, routine or medication.
I am at a loss of anything that is simpler and needs less research. The same is true for many
mental illnesses. If we take the time to understand them we may see them as a natural, healthy
and necessary part of our world. If we take this approach we would stop medicating people
into incoherency. Many cancers, lung diseases and heart diseases have causes that are lifestyle
or environmental?. Stop consuming tobacco, clean up the air, stop dumping waste into our
water systems, use environmentally sound organic methods of agriculture, turn off the
television, get off Facebook and take a walk. How much “science” does this require?
Food science is a huge and easy target. It appears to be all about “improving” nature. I have a
hard time understanding how a food which is healthy and flavorful in itself is improved by
adding chemicals to it. Aspartame, sucralose and other artificial sweeteners are a disaster for
diabetics, the morbidly obese and most other people. Margarine and butanedione are better
than natural oils and fats? The whole vitamin/supplement market is beginning to collapse now
that it is being realized that an apple or peach is a better supplement than the latest GNC
product. Another chemical to improve how a food tastes or another additive to improve its
nutrition is necessary? How does another sweetener, emulsifier or other unnatural additive add
anything to a plate of fresh greens with vinegar or a dish with herbs ten minutes from a garden?

97. Agriculture is another easy target. Bioengineering is straight from the depths of our narcissism.
Pesticides are developed knowing that in a few years biology will triumph over them. Crops are
bioengineered and fail because ecology was at best a minor consideration while destroying
native birds, insects, reptiles and other organisms. We should not be looking at methods and
products that give Monsanto or DuPont quarterly dividends. Instead we need to be pursuing
methods which help increase productivity by improving the health of the local ecosystems, not
destroying them. We can put birdhouses and bat houses around fields to control unwanted
insects, plant native wildflowers to bring in pollinators, plant trees in our pastures and croplands
to attract hawks and owls for the control small of rodents, encourage coyotes and gray foxes to
rid our fields of larger rodents. Imagine the almost limitless possibilities of easily intuitive
practices that exist which are more than sustainable because they rebuild the ecosystems we
have destroyed. These strategies which are based on the patient observation of where we live
are much better than intrusive processes which fundamentally alter and destroy our
ecosystems.
In ecology we constantly add new organisms to an ecosystem to “correct” problems caused by
organisms added earlier. Biocontrol has a failure rate of at least 80 percent with unknown
ecological consequences for the organisms we can track. Then there are the organisms we
released which we cannot track once they are loosed in the ecology because they disappear
from our sight. Will these invisible organisms become visible again after a latency period with
disastrous consequences as many of the present problem organisms have? Why do we call this
a success?

98. Fish and Game Commissions are wonderful at changing conditions to try to enhance a system
for one organism while forgetting about the effects on other organisms in that system. Make an
area into a deer or grouse habitat to enhance their presence while not taking into account what
this may do to the targeted species, let alone non-targeted species. The damage caused by
creating deer habitat is catastrophic to the native vegetation. This in turn causes the rest of the
ecosystem to collapse. This is then called wildlife conservation even though there is a severe
loss of native species which use the previously unaltered habitats? A non-native fish is
introduced into a stream or a non-native “game” bird into an ecosystem just for the sake of
“sport” and tradition. (Anyone care for trout stuffed pheasant?) Introduce plants like Russian
olive which almost no native wildlife uses for the intended purpose of food and cover. Chinese
lespedeza is planted as a food for game birds which then starve to death with crops full due to
the indigestibility of the seed coat. Sawtooth oaks were introduced for the amount of organics
they produce but support virtually no wildlife because they are not a natural part of a local
plant, let alone wildlife, community. The Pennsylvania Game Commission sees logging as an
integral part of wildlife conservation. All I see after several years is a biological desert where
“best practices” means the destruction of hundreds of acres of healthy woodland every year.
Meanwhile the native organisms and normal balances are destroyed with the extinction of the
habitats we are supposed to be protecting.

99. These are only a few of the easy branches of what is commonly called “Science” where failure
to do Science is obvious. For me, the study of biocontrol in ecology is a series of disasters which
have already happened, continue to happen and will happen in the future because we are
blindly narcissistic about what we can do while forgetting our history. We see almost
insurmountable problems which need solving without taking the time to believe already
established Science theory and think. Most importantly we do not take the time to walk and
observe. A few years ago the Brown Marmorated Stinkbug was a huge problem where we live.
This fall I have killed perhaps a dozen as opposed to two years ago when I killed thousands. Our
garden is pesticide free. We have two freezers full of produce because we took the time to
understand the ecology and work with it. As far as medicine is concerned, I am both a type 2
diabetic and a type 2 bipolar. I trusted my instincts on the diabetes and have been proven
correct. I did the same with mental illness.
As Scientists we fail in the same way politicians fail and our society fails because our collective
memory of where we have been, the lessons it taught and our history are forgotten. In my field,
ecology, getting back to the basics will inform our future and prevent cascading catastrophic
mistakes which cannot be remediated by well-intentioned future actions. This is true in almost
all aspects of Science.

100. To summarize, where the definition and practice of Science has gone wrong is that as Scientists
we are primarily observers not problem solvers. “Problem solving” can only come from patient
extensive observation before experimentation. Experimentation is a secondary activity, not
primary, as it is the application of observation to answer a question or questions developed
from observation. Science is not engineering.