North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Jwlehman@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/5/2005 5:42:33 PM US Eastern Standard Time, topgun@otelco.net writes:

> One would not readily come to the conclusion that bark wounding would slow
> down substantially the next season's growth. 
> Topgun


Hello Heron,

I can't agree with your statement. And my disagreement may be a difference of definition and degree of damaged bark. Deer regularly girdle my persimmon trees as much as 50% around and 12 inches in duration. Although I haven't kept notes on the trees to compare them with similar aged undamaged trees say 5 years later, just drive by observation of them tells me it stunts them greatly. They definitely fall behind in growth compared to other trees of the same age and same area. Then shoots from below the damaged area grow out. The damaged central leader usually never fully recovers and often dies out and one has open wounds from removing the lesser limbs from below. It simply isn't a pretty site and if I never saw another deer it would be OK. I'd like to see them in zoos only.   

To me it only makes sense that if 50% of the tree is debarked you have reduced the capacity to carry nutrients to the upper portion of the tree by 50%. Even if the phloem is undamaged to carry sugars back to the roots, the upper portion of the tree is denied nutrients because the xylem is injured, hence reducing the upper portion it's ability to generate sugars to in turn feed the root system. This reduction I'd think will also slow down root development because of starvation and possibly temporarily reduce the root system size.  

Jerry