Is this parasitic evil triffid ivy ?
Yes it is.
The stuff up the tree probably will, but it will regrow at ground level.
Glyphosate is not effective on ivy. It ignores the stuff completely - I've tried it and it doesn't work on ivy.
The best you can do is carefully dig down around the vine roots and pull them out as best you can... if you water deeply it will make the job a lot easier, in fact shooting a strong steam of water at the soil around the vine roots will make the job go a lot quicker... keep at it and eventually the vine will be kaput. That tree looks too close to that shed/building and was obviously erected long after that tree was growing there, why was that structure placed so close... half the tree's roots are under the building.
That's much too risky. The ivy will quickly draw the Roundup deep into it's roots where it will be deposited in close proximity to the tree roots, whereby it will severely damage if not kill the tree. I strongly suggest removing the ivy roots mechanically (digging). In most instances it's just not possible to eliminate established vines without major excavation which will destroy desirable plants nearby as well, then all one can do is constantly prune away what vines appear. I constantly prune away all kinds of vines from hedgerows, forest perimeters, and those that just pop up under trees/shrubs just sitting out in a field... from seeds that birds drop... that how those vines arrived at that plum tree, from birds eating vine berries and pooping the seeds... there is no way to prevent that from reoccuring except by removing that tree, which is precisely what applying Roundup nearby will achieve... even is one is lucky enough to yank all those vines brand new ones will soon appear... birds eat berries, perch in trees, and poop... since the beginning of time.
How do you know this? When a plant is growing strongly roundup is drawn down into the plant after it is applied to from the leaves, this is docmentated as part of the way it works and the reason using it on dormant plants is largely a waste of time . Where did you get the bit about it crossing from the ivy roots to the tree roots via the soil?
David
Does the ivy use the tree sap when it attaches itself so tenaciously to the tree ? IE. is it parasitic ?
It is a fence.I just moved in and original owner probably planted it. The ivy roots are right next to the tree roots and are difficult to attack
Then just snip the vines periodically, it's only one tree, no biggie.
Yes, it's parasitic, but it doesn't suck the sap per se, it extracts nutrients from the cambium the same way ivies extract minerals from masonary, slowly weakening the tree making it susceptible to diseases, and eventually killing it.
The same way most folks who possess common sense know such things, from experience. I've personally done exactly what you propose to an old wisteria vine growing too close to my back garage door and a short time later noticed the leaves on my holly bush growing on the other side of the fence were shriveling. So how many times did your mommy have to tell you the stove is hot before you burned yourself...
Have you ever used Roundup near roses? It has a very detrimental effect on roses and it's not as a result of spray drift. I have to say that I tend towards agreeing with Sheldon on the soil effect.
Roundup is systemic, it enters primarilly through the leaves because that's obviously what is the only unprotected exposed portion of a plant where it's absorbed and makes a bee line to the plant's roots, that's where it kills the plant... even their TV ads scream "My roots!, My roots!".... cutting off a plant's leaves won't kill most plants. Once concentrated in the roots one can see the plant dying in only a short time by observing the part one can see, the leaves will begin to curl and shrivel as if hit with a blow torch. But underground plants roots spread and entwine with the roots of nearby plants and that is where the transfer takes place, it's actually as though the defolient has taken a short cut, in fact it has. I used to use Roundup but I don't anymore, I stopped using it about ten years ago. I was spraying my gravel roadway, about 1,000 ft, to get rid of the weeds that grew through. It was a nasty job spraying on a hot sunny day (as recommended), it was expensive for the amount I needed, but I was willing to make the effort and spend the dollars until one day I noticed that the deer and other critters were browsing on those freshly sprayed weeds. I still have a gallon of Roundup concentrate in my shed but I won't use it, I learned to live with a weedy road, now I mow it. In fact just last week I hacked down a gigantic rugossa rose bush growing at the edge of my hedgerow that was sticking out to grab me as I mowed by. I was very tempted to apply Roundupo to those stumps but thought better of it knowing I'd take down several plants nearby and create a large defoliated section, I don't want bald spots, I'll lose some privacy. And there's a very nice large hickory tree living right there. I strongly suggest thinking very carefully before applying Roundup. Even when I sprayed my roadway Roundup killed all flora for two feet per side wider than I sprayed... it took a few days longer for its effect to creep.
While glyphosate has been associated with deformities in a host of laboratory animals, its impact on humans remains unclear.
Although the Roundup trademark is registered with the US Patent Office and still extant, the patent has expired. Glyphosate is marketed in the US and worldwide in different solution strengths under many tradenames:[11] Roundup, Buccaneer, Razor Pro (41%), Genesis Extra II (41% w/ Surfactant), Roundup Pro Concentrate (50.2 %), Rodeo (51.2%), Aquaneat (53.8%), and Aquamaster (53.5%).[12] These products may contain other ingredients, causing them to have different effects. For example, Roundup was found to have different effects than glyphosate alone.[13] Roundup herbicides are usually water-based solutions containing glyphosate, a surfactant, and other substances.
Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of the amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. It does this by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), which catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate (S3P) and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate (ESP).[15] ESP is subsequently dephosphorylated to chorismate, an essential precursor in plants for the aromatic amino acids: phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan.[16][17] These amino acids are used in protein synthesis and to produce secondary metabolites such as folates, ubiquinones and naphthoquinone. X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS show that glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate, mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzyme substrates complex.[18] The shikimate pathway is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diet. Glyphosate has also been shown to inhibit other plant enzymes,[19][20] and also has been found to affect animal enzymes.
When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[39] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[78] It has been proposed that glyphosate applications increase the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight.[79]
In soils, half-lives vary from as little as three days at a site in Texas to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[80] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after a glyphosate application.[81] Glyphosate adsorption to soil varies depending on the kind of soil.
-----
Then there is the traditional "False advertising" and the ever popular "Scientific fraud" On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[95][96][97] In the first incident, involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT), an EPA reviewer stated, after finding "routine falsification of data", it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits".
I have to say to start I don't know the answer and I am asking questions to try to work one out. The reason I doubt the crossover from root to root idea is that glyphosate is said to be quickly deactivated in contact with the soil so it seems a bit much for it to cross two membranes and the soil and arrive intact. The idea that ivy draws on the fluids from its host seems a more promising mechanism to me. If anybody has any references to that I would like to read them.
D
As well as my mum telling me about stoves my dad told me "The problem with people is not so much the things they don't know but the things they know that just ain't so" I believe that is from Mark Twain. Your proposed root to root transfer mechanism seems to be an assumption to me with no direct evidence. It may be right or wrong, I don't know. Don't take it personally I am not saying this to wind you up but to get to a good answer.
David
Ivy has a very bad reputation and it is commonly thought that it kills trees. Contrary to popular belief, ivy is not parasitic and does not directly affect the health of the trees it climbs. Unlike true parasitic plants, (such as mistletoe, whose roots tap directly into the resources of the host plant) ivy has its feeding roots anchored in the ground and simply uses the tree as a support to get to where it wants to go. The masses of tiny, hair-like roots sprouting from the under surface of the stems, are simply designed to provide support and allow the plant to climb. Although these roots provide almost immovable adhesion to the rough surfaces of tree trunks and walls, they are not used for feeding, and at worst only penetrate the outermost layer of bark on host trees.
It is primarily in terms of competition for natural resources that ivy affects the health of trees, particularly where light is concerned. If ivy has become established on a tree, it is more likely to be a sign of stress than a cause of it. A heavy infestation of ivy, particularly in the upper crown, is usually an indication that the tree is in a natural state of decline; most healthy crowns will let insufficient light through for the ivy to grow vigorously. Ash, Fraxinus excelsior, is an exception as the crown tends to be thin and open. This allows major infestations to occur, thereby restricting photosynthesis, but it is still unlikely that the life of a healthy tree will be shortened. In the case of a diseased or dying tree, where the it¹s growth rate and vigour may be slow or in decline, the ivy¹s more vigorous growth allow it to smother the tree. The bushy adult growth will then have a tendency to make the tree top heavy, making it more likely to fall, particularly during adverse weather conditions.
While it is not parasitic, the dense ivy canopy may contribute to wind damage of trees because it catches the wind and creates a "sail" effect.
English Ivy is just climbing on and attaching to the tree with aerial roots which do not penetrate the tree and "suck or feed on" the life blood of the tree -- English Ivy IS NOT parasitic.
-------
Then glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate. It isn't excreted.
When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[39] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[78] It has been proposed that glyphosate applications increase the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight.[79]
In soils, half-lives vary from as little as three days at a site in Texas to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[80] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after a glyphosate application.[81] Glyphosate adsorption to soil varies depending on the kind of soil.[82]
Glyphosate adsorbs strongly to soil and is not expected to move vertically below the six inch soil layer; residues are expected to be immobile in soil. Glyphosate is readily degraded by soil microbes to AMPA, which is degraded to carbon dioxide. Glyphosate and AMPA are not likely to move to ground water due to their strong adsorptive characteristics.
EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
0178fact.pdfGlyphosate is a chelating agent.
David Hare-Scott wrote: ...
no actual references beyond general biology texts which do show that fungal hyphae can move nutrients around between plants or from the soil into plants (they do act as a phosphate transport).
songbird
The glyphosate bonds to the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS).
X-ray crystallographic studies of glyphosate and EPSPS show that glyphosate functions by occupying the binding site of the phosphoenolpyruvate (which would normally bonding at this site), mimicking an intermediate state of the ternary enzyme substrates complex.
As you can see
AM fungi (AMF) help plants to capture nutrients such as phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen and micronutrients from the soil.
As you can see glyphosate is a much larger molecule than the nutrients, and there is no reason to suppose that the mycorrhizae could transport a molecule as large as glyphosate.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.