Sugar water for trees, good or bad? Soil | Carbon | Plant Sugars | Roots

Eric Frei

We all know trees make sugars via photosynthesis.

So, a theory evolved that watering trees with sweet water is a benefit.

Some studies have showed the opposite but this thread explores the facts.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...9620.Bt.r.html

__________________

Sean Freeman

Sugar and the soil food web, very interesting stuff.

Here's a press release from CSU;

and yes here's a PDF with more detail about the study and some photos;

sweetendtoweeds.pdf

I have reservations when claims are made for any single soil amendment as the answer to problems faced by trees. However the proven role sugars play in the rhizosphere is critical to the health of the bottom trophic level, the micororganisms, bacteria and fungi. The exudation zone around the roots of plants has higher sugar concentrations than the surrounding soil structure, that is extremely attractive to the microorganisms who need those sugars to be able to complete their own metabolic processes...in this way these sugars (simple carbohydrates) are essential to arguably the most important cycle going on (from the plant's perspective) the process of ionisation within the soil profile.

You can find more than enough data at the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service website http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/s...y/biology.html
There are nine chapters plus lots of links, references etc...

However for those who are less patient here's a paper by Dr Elaine Ingham (from around 1995) that explains the soil food web very well, as Arborists pay particular attention to the explaination of how in the process of predation Nitrogen is accumulated in the soil (around the roots);

The Soil Foodweb ecosys health.doc

Some of our understanding of interrelationships between soil microorganisms has advanced since this paper was written but the general tenents are still valid.

Now having gained (hopefully) much knowledge from that paper, visit this site from the USDA Ag research service and draw on the specfic understanding of the relationship between mycorrhizal fungi and plant roots re sugars;

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv.../fungi0501.htm

I'm not sure this is enough to get it moved into the Tree Fact Factory, but I'll be honest and say for me the relationship is well proven and although I started out as a skeptic; re the impact of simple sugars on tree health, I have become a true believer,
I don't feed trees, only the sun can do that, but I sure as hell feed the soil trees live in.

Sean Freeman

I know this is a bit odd dragging an old thread up from the past but the question of sugar soltutions came up on ???? in relation to dealing with damage to tree roots by footpath construction..........sooooooooooo.......here from the ensuing debate are some excellent bits of research.....some of which some of you will have already read...think of it as revision

joa2005sugar.pdf

sugar feeding and root vigour.pdf

One lump or two.doc

Treelore

Without getting too embroiled in the subject. Sugar, Mollasses, Carbohydrate drenches, etc are a bacterial stimulant. Great for grasses and lower plant species but not real good for trees as they are fungally dominant. We have already in our landscapes bacterially dominant circumstances due to extensive grassed systems and unhealthy soils which prohibit the proliferation of fungal biomass.

Sean Freeman

Now I don't want to put anyone off by disappearing into jargon so I'll keep this as straight forward as I can..

The point of this particular thread was to examine and discuss the relative usefulness of applying sugar (simple carbohydrate) solutions to the soil and root environment of trees in terms of boosting the health and vigour of those trees.

Well to understand the importances of simple sugars in the soil and root environment you need to start looking at the soil in a slightly different way, instead of seeing and concieving of it as "dirt" you need to see it as a living web of interrelated organisms...many very very small (bacteria) and some very familiar and large (worms, beetles etc). All these organisms interact with each other compete for physical space and resources...they make up what is called the soil food web. Lets put to one side for a moment the unnatural state of our urban soils and look at the model...



Now Treelore is correct that it is possible when examining what is going on in the soil food web for a particular vegetative community...prairie grass lands for example...to identify a dominance of certain elements of the web in relation to others, he points out that grass lands tend to have a greater ratio of bacteria to fungi...ie bacteria dominate the microscopic levels in the web, what is termed the first trophic level. Because the bacteria dominate this first (bottom if you like) level in the web it has a cascading effect throughout the web and the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil generally......the soil environment (soil food web) that evolves under a grass dominated community is (in theory) far from ideal for normal healthy tree growth. (I'll return to this later...please bear with me!!!!)

But what has this to do with sugar!!!!!

The simple carbohydrates that sugar represents, be it sucrose, glucose or fructose are essential to the life cycle of both bacteria and fungi....indeed the payoff for those mycorrhizae is that the tree delivers carbohydrate direct to the fungi, the theory/model if you like is simple; when mycorrhizae are present in a relatively healthy soil the introduction of simple sugars....sugar water.....will produce accelerated fungal growth, increasing the chances of root inoculation.

Simple sugars are also stimulants for bacteria...yes, but not exclusively, one of the problems I and others have with some minor aspects of the way the soil food web model is applied is precisely this kind of confusion.

Vegetative communities that are dominated by grasses do support very long lived healthy tree growth...not closed canopy forests, no, not old growth forest, but open Eucalyptus and Melaleuaca forests are very significant to the evolution of our continent.

The oldest trees in the UK and some parts of Northern Europe are found in woodland pasture, not in old growth closed canopy forest...and yes I know that is a reflection of the human agricultural influences on the land and the vegetation but nevertheless these veterans are there, and where human impacts are minimal (no road or house building etc) they are living out their life cycle relatively unaffected by the presence of large volumes of grass species as an understorey.

Nobody is suggesting that merely by applying sugar solutions alone structural problems in the ecosystem of the soil can be redressed..that is not the case.
Sugar solutions or sugar water if you like should be part of a comprehensive program of plant health care...that begins with establishing what is going on (or not going on) in the soil and around the roots of the tree in question, thensets about trying to redress some of the problems that we can affect...some we cannot as arborists working on a single site have any immediate impact on eg disappearing ground water!

Carbon loss is often the single most important aspect of the soil ecosystem that requires attention...applying mulch in the form of aged wood chips and forest mulch ideally from the same mix of species that make up the ecosystem being worked on...... The purpose of the mulch the carbon source is to provide fuel for the soil food web, sugar water and compost teas (brewed deliberately to replace identified short falls in the exisiting food web) are the stimulants to kick start the process of decomposition that is critical to all the cycling going on in the soil.

Sugar solutions as part of a wider program of soil works are very good for trees indeed....and it is a mistake to think that fungi are not predisposed to breakdown sugars when they are available in the soil...that is precisely what they do and thank the gods they do too...the so called "sugar fungi" (together with bacteria) immediately absorb the simple sugars and amino acids and the explosion in the population of "sugar" decomposers is critical to the functioning of the next trophic level in the soil food web...ass the simple compounds are used up these "sugar" fungi decline, but their excretory products and they themselves become part of the mineralisation process in teh soil and lead into the decomposition of more complex organic compounds.

I know its getting complicated to follow......

What I'm trying to say is that the many very critical fungi species (critical to the health of trees) are stimulated directly and indirectly by the addition of simple sugars to the soil and root environment...yes bacteria are stimulated too and that is a good thing.

Models are essential to our understanding very complicated sets of relationships...3D relationships at that! However models sometimes give us a falsely simplified view of those relationships......

The rhizosphere is a tiny and emmense environment all at the same time, it is constantly in flux. the micro biology of the rhizoshere around the roots of an ancient oak in open pasture in a field in Scotland is different to that found 20 metres away in the soil around the hawthorn hedgerow.

Its even more interesting (and complex) in areas like the Mitchell grass lands of Western Queensland...where my love Michelle lives (AKA the explorers tree Hughenden)...but maybe for another thread eh?

(hope I didn't put you all to sleep )

Treelore

It's late and I have a couple of beers under my belt so if this is nonsense I'll re-explain tomorrow. For the most part I agree with Sean. However either due to his lack of explanation much the same as I was trying to avoid I may have misinterpreted some of what he said.
Fat people who live on pizza and macdonalds are alive. Moreso they can remain alive for extended periods of time. Their health and combative abilities however do remain in question due to their susceptibility through inadequacies within their diet.
There is no question that higher plant species require a higher fungal component to their ratios than bacterial....Does this suggest that bacterial quantities or responses are not necessary for higher plant growth??? Of course not... So as Sean mentioned holistic plant care is of a greater benefit. If you spray sugar water over a trees root system you will feed Bacteria in turn feeding protozoa and definitely increasing total biomass for the tree. This will increase readily available nitrogen because of C/N ratios between bacteria and protozoa but do nothing more than promote growth as Seans studies mentioned.
Trees exude into their soil something in the vicinity of 85% of their created sugars to feed surrounding organisms to benefit their lifestyle. Ordinarily throughout the millions of years that they have been adapting, sugar was the lacking component!! Without human disturbance fungal foods have always been in abundance. Cellulose, lignin and carbon are the food substances for fungus. Previously in history they were always present. With extensive land clearing and sunbaked earth these fungi have been seriously depleted because their condition is a moist and warm environment and they no longer exist. It is now our job to recognise original bacterial/fungal ratios as with protozoan and nematodal numbers and attempt to re-introduce that into our existing soils!!

Sean Freeman

Just a quick post as i finalise my packing for the fortnightly slog to the southeast corner.....Its late-ish and my weekend has been fragmented to say the least.

Treelore is quite correct when he says that there are more important things than cutting into the canopy with a chainsaw....a great many of us myself included have spent a great deal of time perfecting what we do to the above ground parts of trees..how much to cut, where to cut when to cut what to spray so on and so on....We have only really ever looked at the roots when it comes to deciding if the tree is unstable due to root loss or dysfunction, very very few of us have developed a good understanding of just what the heck is going on in the soil, between the plant and the myriad of other living organisms.

This topic sugar water for trees good or bad, really by its title misses the real issue about what is happening in the rhizosphere...the micro universes between the plant (trees) and the soil food web (and that includes the physical and chemical struture and processes in the soil).

What I have tried to point towards is the usefulness of sugar solutions as part of much bigger and comprehensive program of soil works aimed at reinvigourating that universe down below.....I am not suggesting that we should all go out and throw bags of sugar around (though you might want to give that a go in your vege patch)

What I am saying is that as Arborists we should have a working understanding of the soil food web and how it relates to the different vegetation communities we encounter in our regions. We should all know what the importance of fungal and bacterial ratios is, how and why it can effect tree health, longevity and vigour. We should all understand the absolutely fundemental part the living organisms in the soil play in all of teh biological cycles that at school were taught to us as if they occured devoid of any organic living elements at all.

WHY?

Because then we can actually begin to offer our clients total plant health care, we can actually approach severely declining trees and see beyond the chop and drop option that formed the basis for tree work 20/30yrs ago....there will always be a place for the removal of trees, for the formative pruning of trees for the appropriate species selection and planting of trees.....chainsaws will always be a part of tree work....no question.....But if we are to learn anything from the growing realisation of the appauling consequences of our impact on the environment around us it should be that releasing more carbon into the atmosphere is not a good idea. (When you cut down and chip up trees and leave the ground exposed to the sun and elements it is a triple negative whammy in the carbon cycle)

I may have appered to have meandered off the simple topic somewhat but bear with me I'll bring this snowball around!!!

There are many ways we can manage trees in the urban environment, in soils that have been so massively transformed by the processes of human development that they bear hardly any resemblence to anything approaching a natural form or structure.....here's just a small selection

We can plant into these soils without alteration, without soil works the toughest most resliant species we know of and watch them very slowly struggle growing shortened troubled lives to be overwhelmed after less than 25% of their potential life span by the latest blight of pest.

We can create large engineered planters into which we plant the species we want knowing that they will be limited by the contained soil and root volume provided for them...huge pot plants, to be replaced in 20..maybe 30yrs (though more likely 10yrs)

We can argue for proper planning of significant green spaces in new subdivisions that will be excluded from civils and have at least 12 months of intensive soil works applied to them prior to any long term tree plantings.

We can apply comprehensive soil works to our existing urban forest (where its future growth is a sensible proposition) based not on astrology or I ching, or any snake oil but on the detailed microscopic assay of the soil food web in each location, and base our remediation work on those results....mush of our urban forest is literally clinging to edge of a decline spiral, and though we may not yet be able to precisely determine what each species in each and every region requires we do currently have sufficient understanding and knowledge to tilt the scales in favour of longer stronger healthier tree growth.

Everyone has choices to make all the time little choices big choices, all of us, we make up the communities in which we live and work, we elect the officials to office in councils and government yet we all very often act as if it were someone elses responsibility to effect change........

There are a great many ways to manage trees in the urban environment.....I know which way makes the most sense to me, and a small part of it will occaisionally envlove sugar water

Attached Thumbnails

 

Eric Frei

Source: University of York press release

__________________

The Tree Whisperer

I am trying to find out more on this subject as well so I am open to any opinions but would like to know on what basis (i.e. research) they were formed.

Firstly my understanding of 'Sugar Water' was that it was a carbohydrate supplementation for the tree itself which may in turn have the added benefit of stimulating the soil biosphere.

I have recently undertook this process on 2 large 100yr old norfolk island pines who have had their roots severed by a dedicated landscape architect who thought it would be nice to install uplighting to highlight the trees. Now with aproximately 85% of their root mass gone they are, sorry WERE, cholorotic and dying.

I will go back to tree physiology 101. Trees produce sugar through photosynthesis this sugar is stored in large roots and the trunk and utilised as it is reconverted during respiration for tree growth. now it is my understanding that a tree can survive a severe loss of leaves, roots etc for a short period of time by relying on its stored sugars, as No leaves means no sugar production,this si the process that happens after bush fires with massive amounts of epicormic shoots.
Loss of roots = loss of water intake = loss of ability for photosynthesis. This is what I term a negative carbohydrate output. i.e. more carbohydrate is being drawn from stores then is being, or can be produced. An organism can only survive like this for so long. In humans we can last a few days/weeks without food as our body burns up stored fat however eventually if this energy store is not replaced (negative carbohydrate output), we DIE!

So now to make a long post longer! My understanding of using sugars as a supplement for trees is that the theory is, by applying this sugar and the following uptake of sugar into the plant, the tree is not having to produce this sugar through the photosynthetic process. In turn it is a little like putting the tree on a drip. i.e. we give it what it is trying to produce so that we can restore the balance to the carbohydrate production/ conversion process and therefore have a neutral carbohydrate output.

Now whilst we do this (as at best this can be considered a temporary and emergency treatment) we must do something to remediate the trees roots system and therfore allow it to increase water uptake and therefore allow it to eventually restore its own balance of carbohydrate production and conversion.

In my test case this has been done by the use of KELPAC which is high in cytokinins and auxins. Auxins are often used to promote initiation of adventitious roots and are the active ingredient of the commercial preparations used in horticulture to root stem cuttings.

Cytokinins are involved in many plant processes, including cell division and shoot and root morphogenesis.

Therefore by utilising kelpac which has no other active ingredients i.e. no macro/micro fertiliser elements, we then can stimulate increased cell differentiation and so the production of root callus tissue and respondent new root shoots will increase the root mass dramatically and therefore increase water and nutrient uptake and therefore increase photosynthesis ability.

As I said this is all new and I am part way through the whole little experiement. I used dextrose at a rate of 35g/L of water the area was then well watered after application. (SOAKED!!!!)

In respone the tree which was losing canopy and was mostly yellowing and cholortic is now 10 weeks later a vibrant green and much healthier. I have recieved several comments on how people cannot believe the turn around in general tree health. Mostly from the very concerned Cafe owner who has Alfresco dining tables on the lawn below the trees.

Look forward to more comments:
signs101:

derwoodii

I,m still trying to get my head around all this but http://www.treelink.org/joa/2004/nov/percival11-04.pdf got me started a few years back in field err sorta tests found mix results some nuthin others wow it lives but no controls or duplication so just theory on paper.
Turf chaps say molasses in greens can help.

derwoodii

Ok heres a Cor cit for two years she looked like this possum pruned to what I call a zombie tree not alive but wont die. We trimmed to stop the critters gettin on the tree but no change for 3 months. Then added 2000 liters of water slowly with 2kg of white sugar. Bingo 6 weeks later away she went green. Still other attempts to replicate and nuthin dead or no visible change.

Attached Thumbnails

   

The Tree Whisperer

One email reply from a US botanist says sugar water can harm trees as it creates a negative water balance. This process is called reverse osmosis. This occurs when we dont water in fertiliser the fertiliser actually draws water from the plant resulting in 'Fertiliser burn' BUT HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN when we add sugar in WATER isnt it the same process as liquid fertiliser?
the issue here is the concentration of water/sugar i have been told by a reputable professional colleague that rates above 35g/L can cause this 'Burn'
this is just like putting too stron a concentration of fertiliser on plants Most average horticulturalists understand this process.

Excuse me if I sound Niaive but how can it be that plants can absorb several other chemical compounds such as fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides yet apparently cant absorb the one chemical compound that they naturally produce within their own system Sorry it just doesnt make sense.

When the right rate of sugar and water are applied reverse osmosis CANNOT occur therefore then can be NO draw of water from the plant and NO burning will occur. this is pretty simple plant botany!!!!

Journal of Arboriculture article SUGAR FEEDING ENHANCES ROOT VIGOR OF
YOUNG TREES FOLLOWING CONTAINERIZATION
By Glynn C. Percival Journal of Arboriculture 30(6): November 2004 which states 'Of the limited literature available, supplementing root systems with sugar in the form of sucrose has been shown to affect root
metabolism by significantly increasing lateral root branching
and root formation in wheat and barley (Bingham and
Stevenson 1993; Bingham et al. 1997; 1998). Work elsewhere
(Fuchs 1986) also demonstrated that root regeneration
of Rosa multiflora ‘Kanagawa’ was improved more by
application of sucrose/auxin combinations compared to
auxins alone. This finding indicates that the growth pattern
of trees may be altered in favor of enhanced root formation
by treating them during or immediately after transplanting
with sugar, potentially offering a system for reducing tree
mortalities due to transplant shock.

'Significant improvements in tree growth (P < 0.05, Table 1)
as a result of sugar feeding indicate improvements in tree
vitality by alterations to other plant physiological processes
not investigated in this experiment, such as synthesis of
sugar-induced, stress-protectant metabolites and/or
induction of systemic-induced resistance (Herbers et al.
1996; Naidu 1998; Williamson et al. 2002).'

Yes it also states that sugar had no effect on photosynthesis increase but this is not expected any way as with my previous post lack of roots means lack of photosynthesis

it also states 'Root vigor was significantly affected by sugar feeding (Table
2). Applications of sugar as a root drench at 25 and 50 g
(0.9 and 1.8 oz) per liter of water significantly increased (P <
0.05) the RGP, root length, and root dry weight by approximately
30% to 70% over controls in birch, cherry, and red
oak (Table 1).'

'Significant increases in the RGP and root length by week 12
indicate not only short-term enhancement of root vigor but
that sugars work by enhancing formation of new roots and
increasing the length of existing ones. Similar results have
been recorded elsewhere [i.e., increased lateral root
branching and new root formation following incubation of
wheat root systems in sugar solutions (Bingham and
Stevenson 1993; Bingham et al. 1997, 1998)]. Such an effect
is desirable in a landscape situation where rapid root
promotion is required to restore the root crown ratio posttransplanting
and thereby reduce transplant shock. Recent
evidence has shown that in plants, sugars such as sucrose,
glucose, and fructose function not only as substrates for
growth but affect sugar-sensing systems that initiate changes
in gene expression and subsequent plant growth (Koch
1996).'

Bottom line to me is that this seems to work I have applied this in 3 situations all involving trees that were in serious decline as a result of root severence and in all cases these trees have shown dramatic signs of improvement within 14-21 days of application.

So for me at the moment I am happy to consider that I have not had any adverse effect on tree health by applying Dextrose and water at a rate of 35g/L SO I will Keep saving trees cause that to me is better then having to cut them down but then as a consultant and not a tree lopper I guess this is where my passion lies

dcarter

Hi, to all involved with this thread:
I am by education a Forester. However, I do not work in any field related to forestry. I have, during and after college, worked in the field, but for more than 15 years now I have been a firefighter. My love for trees has not been abandoned nor have I abandoned them. With that said, I would lke to add personal experience to this thread.

A few years ago I decided to start messing around with different concoctions for my Christmas Tree. I started with sugar water, it never really helped. I once added a chelated micro nutrient mix with water soluble nitrogen and iron in such a ratio that our Christmas Tree (an eight foot Scotch Pine) not only stayed VERY GREEN, it in fact grew terminal buds about two inches long, seemed to be thriving. (note: I put a fresh cut on the tree as soon as I got it home to reopen the trunk wound with a brand new chain.) I allowed water only for the first 24 hours, then hit it with new mixture and after that it was crazy. The increased metabolism (probably combined with the change of temperature (outside 35 F to inside 65 F) caused the tree to leak sap from every pore.

The telling tale: In January we threw the tree out like always, but it didn't turn brown. (I live in a very temperate, almost subtropical, area.) I left the tree until JUNE and it was still green (not healthy or living) but still green. When we burned it, it gave off a beatiful blue green flame under the brighter standard orange.

I just thought you could add this to your facts if you're going to cover the entire spectrum for data.

CAUTION: When you burn those heavy laden, chemically synthesized veggies, be sure not to breathe the smoke. Hard to tell what may have converted in the process.

Good luck with your research here.

Eric Frei

The key question is can trees absorb the sugar directly or not. If you are seeing improvements with using sugar water is that due to the tree absorbing it directly or due to a myriad of other things happening in the soil?

There are many ways of improving the soil, I have even specified (in reports) a concoction that includes sugar for soil drenches, but the sugar in that concoction was not for the tree to take up directly but as a food source for fungi and microbes.

__________________

dcarter

Not having ever put sugar on a root system (christmas tree post above) I will say that the sugar water on a cut tree just clogged up the cut, gummed it up to say, probably conversion of the carbohydrates in the fiber of the xylem and phloem tubes exposed in the cut. Just an off the cuff guess I made at the time, but seems to stand to reason. i can with great certainty understand the sugar/micro-organism/bacteria/fungi/mycchoriza relationship. After all, many people are familiar with putting yeast into their septic system and by such act are therefore feeding an ecosystem of bacteria.

Brent Ferris

I expect the kind of sugar solution makes a big difference, as does the concentration. And obviously a high concentration would enhance reverse osmosis(as said the botanist). As you point out Eric (and Sean Freeman, and Treelore, and Derwoodii), the sugar may not actually be feeding the tree directly, but feeding the microbes the bacteria, protozoans, fungi etc-- and by enhancing the microbe populations, the tree has more nutrients available to it, so Tree Whisperer has found dramatic improvements in tree growth. What we really need is a response from a soil microbiologist? Do we have such a member on this forum Eric.

Tree Whisperer has had some practical experience with applying sugar solutions and has seen measurable results. He has apparently kept track of the kind of sugar solutions and concentrations, the tree types, responses to applications and this kind of info is hard to glean from literature. Typically there are so many variables, and often the researcher ignores (deliberately or ignorantly) one or more crucial aspects in the research, and the reporting -- that makes comparisons valid. Soil type is going to have a huge impact, and soil type, soil profile, drainage, feeder root locations etc are almost always never mentioned in a discussion. It is a complex issue, and encouraging the input from many is essential to a better understanding. No finger pointing or receiving from anybody here - just relating facts.

Julie is a horticulturalist? Do you know if she has any experience with microbiology?

__________________
My business: Tree Pruning and Removals -- Strump Removals -- Advice -- Consulting -- Arborist Reports
If you want an honest opinion, call Brent Ferris...because, Trees want to Live Too !
We do great jobs, even in small yards.

Free Estimates Oakville to Oshawa - North to Bradford (Will travel further if cost of travelling covered)

Eric Frei

It's reasonably well known and accepted that sugar or better yet molasses is used to control nematodes. How does it work?

from 2 doctors here in Australia:-
But how or why?
So by tipping the soil conditions in favour of the good fungi and bacteria the nematodes are attacked.

But volumes of sugar will directly kill nematodes however the volume is too high for the plants to survive also:-

Souce is 2nd PDF loaded here.
I have also attached a PDF from the NZ Sports Turf Institute and in the last page in the chart again you see molasses and sugar.

Now trees have root exudates of sugars anyway. If you search around the forum or net for that matter you'll find loads of evidence about how trees change their exudates to control the fungi and microbes which in turn provide the tree what it needs. It could be that the broad spectrum sugar drench gives a dramatic increase in beneficial fungi/bacteria etc besides killing some of the pathogens (like nematodes).

The big question still remains unanswered though, that is, can roots take up sugar directly?

Well before you try to answer that question stop and think ... how do tree roots take up anything?

Here's Shigo's page to help.

But in what form and how are elements etc seperated from soil and absorbed? I mean think back to fertilizers the old organic vs chemical question and the chemical one is ready to be absorbed where as the organic needs to be broken down.

Source:- http://www.illinoisarborist.org/Chap...%20%5B1%5D.ppt
There's a Powerpoint attached from Department of Biological Sciences Louisiana State University that shows how transport occurs in plants, great detail.

Attached Files

	08%20Nematodes%20%28JMS&GRS%29.pdf (1.45 MB, 97 views)
	Carbon Amendment for Nematode Control.pdf (289.5 KB, 381 views)
	Nematodes_01.pdf (43.6 KB, 77 views)
	transport in plants.ppt (1.11 MB, 123 views)

__________________

tree huggger

Hi everybody newbie here. I have been reading posts in here for a long time and never actually registered so here goes with my first post.

I am pretty keen on this subject too as I found out about this whislt sitting around a table at the Brisbane ISA conference in 2009 (or maybe 8) cant remember but any hoo I was discussing trees whilst having social drinks and this topic came up and was discussed at length, all present (some pretty sound minded arboriculturists)were of the opinion that sugar water namely termed carbohydrate supplementation was a highly beneficial option for trees in serious stress or decline with one consultant there even stating that he had used this on a large norfolk island pine that had been drilled and poisoned. the tree was yellowed with clear drill holes at base of trunk and had yellowed within app 3-4 days this guy did this carbohydrate supp. thing and within a few weeks no visible signs of poisoning.

Looking forward to finding more as I learn

Jeff Darby

I have been following this thread for some time as well, and others similar but not the same subject and what I have observed is many folks don't seem to read all the available information in front of them and miss interpret said information as such, then they expect people with good comprehension abilities to please explain.

I say to all involved, don't get shirty over it come back read and read some more research the subject and then take the subject at hand to its next level, No one will jump on you for sound logical reasoning supported by facts not hearsay !

__________________

Member: Australian Tree Association

Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard !

Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others

© Jeffrey J Darby 2011

Eric Frei

Source: ScienceDirect - Urban Forestry & Urban Greening : Investigations of exogenous applications of carbohydrates on the growth and vitality of live oaks


However if you buy the paper you'll read this:-

The attached PDF bypasses the roots and they do stem injections of sucrose to mandarin trees.

Other papers I have read support that roots can take up sugars, however the take up rate is low due to microbial competition and very low percentile of sugars make it to the leaves.

In another paper I read it discussed the movemnet of sugars between the xylem and the phloem is possible, so perhaps taken up sugars can bypass the leaves and assist in root growth.

Attached Files

199.full.pdf (119.4 KB, 306 views)

__________________

Eric Frei

Glucose?induced activation of rubidium transport and water flux in sunflower root systems ? J Exp Bot

__________________

Brent Ferris

That is a heavy article Eric.

All this really says is that when sugar is present in the roots -- as it would be found after photosynthetic action -- this enhances K+ transport and shoot activation.

The article says that fructose - a recognized plant sugar, by plants and us-- is absorbed by plant roots, and other sugars not so much. But these are excised roots, not roots actively growing in a soil medium. It is reasonable the plants will absorb the sugar as water is drawn up, and that some of those sugars will affect metabolic processes, but that doesn't mean that sucrose in soil will have the same effect. The plant roots can then choose what to absorb, and sugar -- especially foreign sugar molecules seems an unlikely choice. It is far more reasonable that added sugar will enhance the activity of microbes in the soil, and this in turn will enhance the uptake of available nutrients by the roots, and the tree response follows.

I was unclear how the amount of sugar in solution related to sugar added to soil in the field.

__________________
My business: Tree Pruning and Removals -- Strump Removals -- Advice -- Consulting -- Arborist Reports
If you want an honest opinion, call Brent Ferris...because, Trees want to Live Too !
We do great jobs, even in small yards.

Free Estimates Oakville to Oshawa - North to Bradford (Will travel further if cost of travelling covered)

Eric Frei

This post had information about sugars added to soils.

I have around 10 papers now, the good ones are unavailable on the net for free (you have to pay to get them) so for me to post them up would be wrong.

I learned some new stuff too, very interesting stuff about root border cells that detach from the root but remain alive for a little while, they absorb sugar solution and they exude the same, their turn around of exudate is same as their take up. Their purpose is to increase soil biota around the absorbing roots attracting what the plant needs in close proximity for absorption, they're like pawns on the chess board I suppose, sacrificed cells for the greater cause.

I learned about the interchange between the xylem and phloem of sugar. I learned that less than 10% of added soluble sugar gets absorbed by the plant due to competing soil organisms and fungi. I learned that less than 0.6% of absorbed sugars made it to the leaf. I learned of dangerous rates of application and more is not best, too little does little too. There were comparisons of sucrose, glucose etc.

__________________

derwoodii

I,m still unsure if the sugar just acts on the soil or is somehow absorbed?
Been trying to jam sugar cubes up roots hairs all week n no go so reckon its more soil bio activation but perhaps a little absorbtion going on.
Cannot find any info that dumbs it down enough for me. Its all nanno metres root hair osmosis barriers n gluocose molecules.

dcarter

Derr, you might need to check your blood glucose levels after that post. Thanks for the laugh!!!

Eric Frei

Derr, sugar has to be dissolved.

Minute amounts of can be absorbed.

But be careful as to how much sugar.

Source: Growth of Plants from Soil Part 1 - Principles
Some school experiments with seeds.

Scientific Inquiry through Plants :: SiP3

__________________

tree huggger

Carbohydrate supplementation is just one small tool. It is my understanding of this that it is an emergency treatment only and has no long term remediation benefits. The key here is that sugar levels should be low (no more then 35g/L (at least this is what was recommended to me applied to root zone). Then followed with supplementary water. This process should then be followed by cytokinnin and auxin supplementation and mulching of as much of root zone as is physically possible. In the test cases I have previously mentioned that i have used this treatment on, they have all been trees with severely damaged root zones, and in a serious state of decline. Sugar water would NOT be recommended as a fertiliser or supplement to trees in good health.
SO GOOD or BAD ??????????????
I guess if nothing else seems like it is working try it. I also suggest that it is trialled as a last resort option only and forms only a small part of rememdiation.
Can I also make the suggestion that if any one trials this they keep good records (photos, rates, etc, and progress) so they can report findings. wouldnt it be nice if all those interested in this subject either opposed or for were open minded to explore this potential, and share their findings.
As I have previously mentioned I have used this in 3 different trials on 3 different species (Araucaria spp, Eucalyptus spp, and Ficus spp.) along with cytokinins and auxin supplementation, mulching and watering. On all of them I have seen signs of recovery within 10 days of treatment. On the Araucarias, after 3 months they have regressed, again. So they have gone from being very sick to bright green and new growth, to being sick again. Will continue with my program and let you all know

Eric Frei

Chitin in the soil is very interesting too.

I heard years ago that any shellfish are good for the soil, like prawn or crab shells. (Might have been on a TV gardening show many many moons ago).

Now the interesting part about chitin is it increases exudates from bacteria, it is antagonistic to nematodes and bad fungi/bacteria but helps good fungi/bacteria. Of course I welcome all input and research, here's a start.

ScienceDirect - Applied Soil Ecology : Chitin stimulates development and sporulation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi
From the PDF attached ....

Attached Files

Scientific%20publications.pdf (49.8 KB, 57 views)

__________________

gsward

Hi, great website. I've learned alot here. I am interested in sugar drenching a sickly tree. Your research specifies sugar at 1.8oz/L which was used on a four year old tree growing in a pot. I think the research drenched twice beginning a week after leafout, then again 21 days later. (going from memory so please correct if I'm wrong)

However, I cannot find anyones recommendations for how many Liters of this 1.8oz/L sugar dose to apply per canopy area, or trunk dbh.

Can anyone with success on this treatment please give the successful volume used, and frequency?

Also will this sugar treatment help root recovery if roots are diseased, or a vascular disease like verticillium?

Eric Frei

Frankly, I'd avoid it. Very small amounts assist soil microbes as a food source. Better you apply soil conditioners (with fungi and bacteria), even biochar.

__________________