If you elect to treat your ash trees, there are several insecticide options available and research has shown that treatments can be effective. Keep in mind, however, that controlling insects that feed under the bark with insecticides has always been difficult. This is especially true with EAB because our native North American ash trees have little natural resistance to this pest. In university trials, some insecticide treatments were effective in some sites, but the same treatments failed in other sites. Furthermore, in some studies conducted over multiple years, EAB densities continued to increase in individual trees despite annual treatment. Some arborists have combined treatments to increase the odds of success (e.g. combining a cover spray with a systemic treatment).

Our understanding of how EAB can be managed successfully with insecticides has increased substantially in recent years. The current state of this understanding is detailed in the bulletin. It is important to note that research on management of EAB remains a work in progress. Scientists from universities, government agencies, and companies continue to conduct intensive studies to understand how and when insecticide treatments will be most effective.

If a tree has lost more than 50% of its canopy, it is probably too late to save the tree. Studies have shown that it is best to begin using insecticides while ash trees are still relatively healthy. This is because most of the insecticides used for EAB control act systemically � the insecticide must be transported within the tree. In other words, a tree must be healthy enough to carry a systemic insecticide up the trunk and into the branches and canopy. When EAB larvae feed, their galleries injure the phloem and xylem that make up the plant�s circulatory system. This interferes with the ability of the tree to transport nutrients and water, as well as insecticides. As a tree becomes more and more infested, the injury becomes more severe. Large branches or even the trunk can be girdled by the larval galleries.

Studies have also shown that if the canopy of a tree is already declining when insecticide treatments are initiated, the condition of the tree may continue to deteriorate during the first year of treatment. In many cases, the tree canopy will begin to improve in the second year of treatment. This lag in the reversal of canopy decline probably reflects the time needed for the tree to repair its vascular system after the EAB infestation has been reduced.

Scientists have learned that ash trees with low densities of EAB often have few or no external symptoms of infestation. Therefore, if your property is within a county that has been quarantined for EAB, your ash trees are probably at risk. Similarly, if your trees are outside a quarantined county but are still within 10-15 miles of a known EAB infestation, they may be at risk. If your ash trees are more than 15 miles beyond this range, it is probably too early to begin insecticide treatments. Treatment programs that begin too early are a waste of money. Remember, however, that new EAB infestations have been discovered every year since 2002 and existing EAB populations will build and spread over time. Stay up to date with current EAB quarantine maps and related information at www.emeraldashborer.info. You can use the links in this web site to access specific information for individual states. When an EAB infestation is detected in a state or county for the first time, it will be added to these maps. Note, however, that once an area has been quarantined, EAB surveys generally stop, and further spread of EAB in that area will not be reflected on future maps.

The economics of treating ash trees with insecticides for EAB protection are complicated. Factors that can be considered include the cost of the insecticide and expense of application, the size of the trees, the likelihood of success, and potential costs of removing and replacing the trees. Until recently, insecticide products had to be applied every year. A new product that is effective for two years or even longer (emamectin benzoate) has altered the economics of treating ash trees. As research progresses, costs and methods of treating trees will continue to change and it will be important to stay up to date on treatment options.

Benefits of treating trees can be more difficult to quantify than costs. Landscape trees typically increase property values, provide shade and cooling, and contribute to the quality of life in a neighborhood. Many people are sentimental about their trees. These intangible qualities are important and should be part of any decision to invest in an EAB management program.

It is also worth noting that the size of EAB populations in a specific area will change over time. Populations initially build very slowly, but later increase rapidly as more trees become infested. As EAB populations reach their peak, many trees will decline and die within one or two years. As untreated ash trees in the area succumb, however, the local EAB population will decrease substantially. Scientists do not yet have enough experience with EAB to know what will happen over time to trees that survive the initial wave of EAB. Ash seedlings and saplings are common in forests, woodlots, and right-of-ways, however, and it is unlikely that EAB will ever completely disappear from an area. That means that ash trees may always be at some risk of being attacked by EAB, but it seems reasonable to expect that treatment costs could eventually decrease as pest pressure declines after the EAB wave has passed.

Insecticides that can effectively control EAB fall into four categories: (1) systemic insecticides that are applied as soil injections or drenches; (2) systemic insecticides applied as trunk injections; (3) systemic insecticides applied as lower trunk sprays; and (4) protective cover sprays that are applied to the trunk, main branches, and (depending on the label) foliage.

Insecticide formulations and application methods that have been evaluated for control of EAB are listed in Table 1. Some are marketed for use by homeowners while others are intended for use only by professional applicators. The �active ingredient� refers to the compound in the product that is actually toxic to the insect.

Formulations included in Table 1 have been evaluated in multiple field trials conducted by the authors. Inclusion of a product in Table 1 does not imply that it is endorsed by the authors or has been consistently effective for EAB control. Please see the following sections for specific information about results from these trials. Results of some tests have also been posted on www.emeraldashborer.info.

Strategies for the most effective use of these insecticide products are described below. It is important to note that pesticide labels and registrations change constantly and vary from state to state. It is the legal responsibility of the pesticide applicator to read, understand, and follow all current label directions for the specific pesticide product being used.

In order to protect the ground water there are restrictions on the amount of imidacloprid and dinotefuran that can be applied on an acre of ground in a year. The table below summarizes current restrictions with the maximum inches of DBH allowed to be treated per acre in a single year. Note that in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan there is a special local needs label (24c) that allows a higher rate of imidacloprid to be applied per acre. When treating larger trees with imidacloprid at twice the rate you can only treat half the number of trees.

Active Ingredient (AI)

Clearly it may be necessary to limit the number of ash trees you can treat on an acre, especially if you are only using imidacloprid or dinotefuran and if you are also applying these products to other plants (eg to kill grubs in turf) on these property. To increase the number of trees that you can treat on an acre you will have to use more than one of the three active ingredients.

How do soil applied systemic insecticides work?

Systemic insecticides applied to the soil are taken up by the roots and translocated throughout the tree. The most widely tested soil-applied systemic insecticide for control of EAB is imidacloprid, which is available under several brand names for use by professional applicators and homeowners (see Table 1). All imidacloprid formulations can be applied as a drench by mixing the product with water, then pouring the solution directly on the soil around the base of the trunk. Dinotefuran is also labeled for use as a soil treatment, but to date it has been tested only as a basal trunk spray (discussed below). Studies to test its effectiveness as a soil treatment are currently underway.

How should I apply the soil drench?

Imidacloprid soil applications should be made when the soil is moist but not saturated. Application to water-logged soil can result in poor uptake if the insecticide becomes excessively diluted and can also result in puddles of insecticide that could wash away, potentially contaminating surface waters and storm sewers. Insecticide uptake will also be limited when soil is excessively dry. Irrigating the soil surrounding the base of the tree before the insecticide application can improve uptake.

Soil drenches offer the advantage of requiring no special equipment for application other than a bucket or watering can. However, imidacloprid can bind to surface layers of organic matter, such as mulch or leaf litter, which can reduce uptake by the tree. Before applying soil drenches, it is important to remove, rake or pull away any mulch or dead leaves so the insecticide solution is poured directly on the mineral soil.

When should I apply soil drenches?

Optimal timing for imidacloprid soil injections and drenches is mid-April to mid-May, depending on your region. Allow 4-6 weeks for uptake and distribution of the insecticide within the tree. In southern Ohio, for example, you would apply the product by mid-April; in southern Michigan, you should apply the product by early to mid-May. When treating larger trees (e.g. with trunks larger than 12 inches in diameter), treat on the earlier side of the recommended timing. Large trees will require more time for uptake and transportation of the insecticide than will small trees. Recent tests show that imidacloprid soil treatments can also be successful when applied in the fall.

How do professional and homeowner applications of soil applied insecticides compare?

The application rates for the homeowner product (Bayer Advanced™ Tree & Shrub Insect Control) and professional formulations of imidacloprid are very similar. Homeowners apply the same amount of active ingredient that professionals apply. However, there are certain restrictions on the use of homeowner formulations that do not apply to professional formulations. Homeowner formulations of imidacloprid can be applied only as a drench. It is not legal to inject these products into the soil, although some companies have marketed devices to homeowners specifically for this purpose. Homeowners are also restricted to making only one application per year. Several generic products containing imidacloprid are available to homeowners, but the formulations vary and the effectiveness of these products has not yet been evaluated in university tests.

Imidacloprid formulations labeled for use by professionals can be applied as a soil drench or as soil injections. Soil injections require specialized equipment, but offer the advantage of placing the insecticide under mulch or turf and directly into the root zone. This also can help to prevent runoff on sloped surfaces. Injections should be made just deep enough to place the insecticide beneath the soil surface (2-4 inches). Soil injections should be made within 18 inches of the trunk where the density of fine roots is highest. As you move away from the tree, large radial roots diverge like spokes on a wheel and studies have shown that uptake is higher when the product is applied at the base of the trunk. There are no studies that show that applying fertilizer with imidacloprid enhances uptake or effectiveness of the insecticide.

Several systemic insecticide products can be injected directly into the trunk of the tree including formulations of imidacloprid and emamectin benzoate (see Table 1). An advantage of trunk injections is that they can be used on sites where soil treatments may not be practical or effective, including trees growing on excessively wet, compacted, or restricted soil environments. However, trunk injections do wound the trunk, which may cause long-term damage, especially if treatments are applied annually.

Products applied as trunk injections are typically absorbed and transported within the tree more quickly than soil applications. Allow 3-4 weeks for most trunk-injected products to move through the tree. Optimal timing of trunk injections occurs after trees have leafed out in spring but before EAB eggs have hatched, or generally between mid-May and mid-June. Uptake of trunk-injected insecticides will be most efficient when trees are actively transpiring. Best results are usually obtained by injecting trees in the morning when soil is moist but not saturated. Uptake will be slowed by hot afternoon temperatures and dry soil conditions.

Dinotefuran is labeled for application as a noninvasive, systemic bark spray for EAB control. It belongs to the same chemical class as imidacloprid (neonicotinoids) but is much more soluble. The formulated insecticide is sprayed on the lower five to six feet of the trunk using a common garden sprayer and low pressure. Research has shown that the insecticide penetrates the bark and moves systemically throughout the rest of the tree. Dinotefuran can be mixed with surfactants that may facilitate its movement into the tree, particularly on large trees with thick bark. However, in field trials, adding a surfactant did not consistently increase the amount of insecticide recovered from the leaves of treated trees.

The basal trunk spray offers the advantage of being quick and easy to apply and requires no special equipment other than a garden sprayer. This application technique does not wound the tree, and when applied correctly, the insecticide does not enter the soil.

Insecticides can be sprayed on the trunk, branches and foliage (depending on the label) to kill adult EAB beetles as they feed on ash leaves, and newly hatched larvae as they chew through the bark. Thorough coverage is essential for best results. Products that have been evaluated as cover sprays for control of EAB include some specific formulations of permethrin, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, and carbaryl (see Table 1).

Protective cover sprays are designed to prevent EAB from entering the tree and will have no effect on larvae feeding under the bark. Cover sprays should be timed to occur when most adult beetles are feeding and beginning to lay eggs. Adult activity can be difficult to monitor because there are no effective pheromone traps for EAB. However, first emergence of EAB adults generally occurs between 450-550 degree days (starting date of Janaury 1, base temperature of 50°F), which corresponds closely with full bloom of black locust (Robinia psuedoacacia). For best results, consider two applications, one at 500 DD₅₀ (as black locust approaches full bloom) and a second spray four weeks later.

Provided by the Ohio State University Extension Service

Provided by Valent Chemical

Efficacy of imidacloprid soil injections for controlling EAB has been inconsistent; in some trials, EAB control was excellent while others yielded poor results. Differences in application protocols and conditions of the trials have varied considerably, making it difficult to reach firm conclusions about sources of variation in efficacy. For example, an MSU study found that low-volume soil injections of imidacloprid applied to small trees averaging 4 inches in DBH (diameter of the trunk at breast height) using the Kioritz applicator (a hand-held device for making low-volume injections) provided good control at one site. However, control was poor at another site where the same application protocols were used to treat larger trees (13 inch DBH). Imidacloprid levels may have been too low in the larger trees to provide adequate control. Higher pest pressure at the second site also may have contributed to poor control in the large trees.

In the same trials, high pressure soil injections of imidacloprid (applied in two concentric rings, with one at the base of the tree and the other halfway to the drip line of the canopy) provided excellent control at one site. At another site, however, soil injections applied using the same rate, timing, and application method were completely ineffective, even though tree size and infestation pressure were very similar. It should be noted that recent studies have shown that imidacloprid soil injections made at the base of the trunk result in more effective uptake than applications made on grid or circular patterns under the canopy.

Imidacloprid soil drenches have also generated mixed results. In some studies conducted by MSU and OSU researchers, imidacloprid soil drenches have provided excellent control of EAB. However, in other studies, control has been inconsistent.

Tree size and effectiveness.

Experience and research indicate that imidacloprid soil drenches are most effective on smaller trees and control of EAB on trees with a DBH that exceeds 15 inches is less consistent. This inconsistency may be due to the fact that application rates for systemic insecticides are based on amount of product per inch of trunk diameter or circumference. As the DBH of a tree increases, the amount of vascular tissue, leaf area and biomass that must be protected by the insecticide increases exponentially. Consequently, for a particular application rate, the amount of insecticide applied as a function of tree size is proportionally decreased as trunk diameter increases. Hence, the DBH-based application rates that effectively protect relatively small trees can be too low to effectively protect large trees. Some systemic insecticide products address this issue by increasing the application rate for large trees.

Using soil drenches for larger trees

In an OSU study with larger trees (15-22 inch DBH), Xytect™ (imidacloprid) soil drenches provided most consistent control of EAB when applied experimentally at twice the rate that was allowed at that time. Recently, the Xytect™ label was modified to allow the use of this higher rate, which we now recommend when treating trees larger than 15 inch DBH. Merit® imidacloprid formulations, however, are not labeled for application at this high rate. Therefore, when treating trees greater than 15 inch DBH with Merit� soil treatments, two applications are recommended, either in fall and again in spring, or twice in spring, about four weeks apart (for example in late April and again in late May). This is not an option for Bayer Advanced™ Tree and Shrub Insect Control and other homeowner formulations of imidacloprid, which are limited by the label to one application per year. Homeowners wishing to protect trees larger than 15 inches DBH should have their trees professionally treated.

All treatment programs must comply with the limits specified on the label regarding the maximum amount of insecticide that can be applied per acre during a given year.

Emamectin Benzoate (TREE-äge™ ) for trees up to 25 inch DBH

In several intensive studies conducted by MSU and OSU researchers, a single injection of emamectin benzoate in mid-May or early June provided excellent control of EAB for at least two years, even under high pest pressure. For example, in a highly-replicated study conducted on trees ranging in size from 5-20 inches DBH at three sites in Michigan, untreated trees had an average of 68 to 132 EAB larvae per m² of bark surface, which represents high pest pressure. In contrast, trees treated with emamectin benzoate had, on average, only 0.2 larvae per m², a reduction of > 99%. When additional trees were felled and debarked two years after the emamectin benzoate injection, there were still virtually no larvae in the treated trees, while adjacent, untreated trees at the same sites had hundreds of larvae.

In two OSU studies conducted in Toledo with street trees ranging in size from 15-25 inch DBH, a single application of emamectin benzoate also provided excellent control for two years. There was no sign of canopy decline in treated trees and very few emergence holes, while the canopies of adjacent, untreated trees exhibited severe decline and extremely high numbers of emergence holes.

One study suggests that a single injection of emamectin benzoate may even control EAB for three years. Additional studies to further evaluate the long-term effectiveness of emamectin benzoate are underway. To date, this is the only product that controls EAB for more than one year with a single application. In addition, in side by side comparisons with other systemic products (neonicotinoids), emamectin benzoate was more effective.

Imidacloprid Timing and Frequency

Trunk injections with imidacloprid products have provided varying degrees of EAB control in trials conducted at different sites in Ohio and Michigan. In a MSU study, larval density in trees treated with Imicide� injections were reduced by 60 to 96%, compared to untreated controls. There was no apparent relationship between efficacy and trunk diameter or infestation pressure. In another MSU trial, imidacloprid trunk injections made in late May were more effective than those made in mid-July, and IMA-jet® injections provided higher levels of control than did Imicide®, perhaps because the IMA-jet® label calls for a greater amount of active ingredient to be applied on large trees. In an OSU study in Toledo, IMA-jet® provided excellent control of EAB on 15-25 inch trees under high pest pressure when trees were injected annually. However, trees that were injected every other year were not consistently protected.

Different Delivery Systems of Imidacloprid, Bidrin, and Acephate

In a discouraging study conducted in Michigan, ash trees continued to decline from one year to the next despite being injected in both years with either Bidrin (Inject-A-Cide B®) or imidacloprid. The imidacloprid treatments consisted of two consecutive years of Imicide® (10% imidacloprid) applied using Mauget® micro-injection capsules, or an experimental 12% formulation of imidacloprid in the first year followed by Pointer™ (5% imidacloprid) in the second year with both applied using the Wedgle™ Direct-Inject™ System. All three treatment regimes suppressed EAB infestation levels in both years, with Imicide® generally providing best control under high pest pressure in both small (six-inch DBH) and larger (16-inch DBH) caliper trees. However, larval density increased in treated and untreated trees from one year to the next. Furthermore, canopy dieback increased by at least 67 percent in all treated trees (although this was substantially less than the amount of dieback observed in untreated trees). Even consecutive years of these treatments only slowed ash decline under severe pest pressure. In another MSU study, ACECAP® trunk implants (active ingredient is acephate) did not adequately protect large trees (greater than 15-inch DBH) under high pest pressure.

In three other side-by-side comparisons, Imicide® consistently provided higher levels of control than did Pointer™. In another MSU study, ACECAP® trunk implants (active ingredient is acephate) were not effective under high pest pressure.

Studies to date indicate that systemic basal trunk sprays with dinotefuran are about as effective as imidacloprid treatments. MSU and OSU studies have evaluated residues in leaves from trees treated with the basal trunk spray. Results show that the dinotefuran effectively moved into the trees and was translocated to the canopy at rates similar to those of other trunk-injected insecticides, and faster than other soil-applied neonicotinoid products.

As with imidacloprid treatments, control of EAB with dinotefuran has been variable in research trials. In a MSU study conducted in 2007 and 2008, dinotefuran trunk sprays reduced EAB larval density by approximately 30-60% compared to the heavily infested untreated trees. The treatment was effective for only one year and would have to be applied annually. In general, control is better and more consistent in smaller trees than in large trees, but more research is needed with larger trees. Studies to address the long-term effectiveness of annual dinotefuran applications for control of EAB are underway.

MSU studies have shown that applications of Onyx™, Tempo® and Sevin® SL provided good control of EAB, especially when the insecticides were applied in late May and again in early July. Acephate sprays were less effective. BotaniGard® (Beauvaria bassiana) was also ineffective under high pest pressure. Astro® (permethrin) was not evaluated against EAB in these tests, but has been effective for controlling other species of wood-borers and bark beetles.

In another MSU study, spraying Tempo® just on the foliage and upper branches or spraying the entire tree were more effective than simply spraying just the trunk and large branches. This suggests that some cover sprays may be especially effective for controlling EAB adults as they feed on leaves in the canopy. They also found a single, well-timed spray provided good control of EAB, although two sprays may provide extra assurance, given the long period of adult EAB activity.

It should be noted that spraying large trees is likely to result in a considerable amount of insecticide drift, even when conditions are ideal. Drift and potential effects of insecticides on non-target organisms should be considered when selecting options for EAB control.