I came away from reading this study with the distinct impression it was a pro-chemical treatment paper, despite the authors' admission that economially speaking, the cost of treatment exceeded tree value in natural forest settings, and could only be justified in residential and community park settings that placed a much higher per tree value on their ash trees.
The study also barely mentions the importance of the timing of chemical injections crucial role in achieving a degree effective control, while making no mention whatsoever of the downsides of chemical control other than its high economic cost. So in my opinion, environmentally speaking, this study is biased in favor of chemical applicators and manufacturers, while giving short shrift to beneficial insects and wildlife impacted by chemical application being used to control EAB.
They do however make mention of planting EAB resistant tree species before, during and after infected tree removal, which in my opion is the best short, midterm and longterm option available, despite its relatively high cost, from a pro-environmental point of view.
Like DED wiping out the elm forests many years ago, this EAB outbreak will run its deadly course in our ash forests quite inexorably, regardless of how many chemicals we throw at it. We'll just have to go with the flow, and try to preserve a few historically important ash trees if possible.
Thanks for posting this important study ReadBothSides, I found it both interesting and enlightening.
jomoco
