Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70349
Full metadata record
???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 孫岩章 | |
dc.contributor.author | Wen-Hua Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳文華 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:26:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-21 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 王永松、丁昭義。1984。林產學。台灣商務印書館股份有限公司。台北市。639頁。
2. 王亞男、詹明勳、林法勤、⿈憶汝、陳勁豪。2006。⾮破壞性檢測方法應⽤於⽼樹健康監測評估與樹齡測定。⾏政院農業委員會林務局保育研究系列94-07 號。⾏政院農業委員會林務局。 3. 王庭碩。2011。以益達胺注射刺桐樹防治刺桐釉⼩蜂。台灣⼤學昆蟲學系碩 ⼠學位論⽂。63 ⾴。 4. ⾏政院農委會農業藥物毒物試驗所。2012。植物保護⼿冊。⾏政院農委會農 業藥物毒物試驗所。905-906 ⾴。 5. 李⾱⾠。2016。放射線菌及常⽤藥劑應⽤於樹⽊褐根病防治之研究。台灣⼤ 學植物病理與微⽣物學系碩⼠學位論⽂。72 ⾴。 6. 吳孟玲。2014。樹⽊病蟲害防治健康管理。植醫及樹醫友善⽤藥與優良處⽅ 研討會論⽂集。台灣植物及樹⽊醫學學會。91-130 ⾴。 7. 林振榮。2017。樹⽊健全評估及管理參考⼿冊。台⼤樹⽊科技有限公司。新 北市。251 ⾴。 8. 柯勇。2004。植物⽣理學。藝軒圖書出版社。台北市。823 ⾴。 9. 孫岩章。2015。談樹⽊褐根病之預防性及治療性藥劑注射防治策略。樹⽊疫 病蟲害之醫療及健檢研討會。溪頭⾃然教育園區。 10. 徐孟豪,2018。 北部地區臺灣欒樹荔枝椿象之發⽣現況與因應對策。都市林樹植醫健康管理研討會。農委會林業試驗所。 11. 陳⽂華、曾勝志、陳學弘、蔡鎮宇、孫岩章。2016。台灣綠化樹種百⼤疫病 蟲害之評選。2016 植栽及樹⽊之醫療及健檢研討會論⽂集。台灣植物及樹⽊醫學學會。 12. 陳昇明。1975。植物⽣理學。三民書局股份有限公司。台北市。428 ⾴。 13. ⿈裕星。2012。台灣樹⽊健康管理現況與展望。林業研究專訊Vol.19 No.2。1-4 ⾴。農委會林業試驗所。 14. ⿈裕星等編譯。2016。樹藝學概論。台灣都市林美化協會。台北市。 15. ⿈裕星、徐孟豪、劉則⾔、吳孟玲。2017。樹⽊注射技術研發與運⽤。2017植栽及樹⽊之健檢與醫療研討會論⽂集。台灣植物及樹⽊醫學學會。 16. 潘瑞熾。2015。植物⽣理學第⼆版。藝軒圖書出版社。台北市。367 ⾴。 17. 蔡淑華。2012。植物解剖學。國⽴編譯館。台北市。358 ⾴。 18. 蔡鎮宇。2018。樹木褐根病菌在田間及發病組織殘存之研究。台灣⼤學植物 醫學碩⼠學位學程碩⼠學位論⽂。80 ⾴。 19. 詹鳳春等。2018。台⽇樹⽊醫⼿冊。農委會林業試驗所。 20. 劉禹麟。2016。桃流膠病藥劑防治之研究。台灣⼤學植物病理與微⽣物學系 碩⼠學位論⽂。97 ⾴。 21. 廖⿓盛。2005。實⽤農藥。得⼒興業股份有限公司。台中市。1130~1150 ⾴。 22. 廖⽟琬,徐善德編譯。2006。植物⽣理學。偉明圖書有限公司。243~245 。台北市。 23. 蕭⽂偉、陳榮裕、曾勝志、王主焰、孫岩章。2016。台灣景觀及果樹樹種百大疫病蟲害之評選。2016 植栽及樹⽊之醫療及健檢研討會論⽂集。台灣植物及樹⽊醫學學會。 24. Alvarez, R. G. 1977. Growth regulators. Journal of Arboriculture 3(5): 94-97. 25. Beiler, J. A. 1991. Injection site wounding when using plant growth regulators.Journal of Arboriculture 17(3): 78-79. 26. Brown, G. K. 1978. Prototype equipment for commercial pressure-injection of aqueous growth regulators into trees. Journal of Arboriculture 4(1): 7-13. 27. Costonis, A. C. 1981. Tree injection: Perspective macro-injection/micro-injection. Journal of Arboriculture 7(10): 275-277. 28. Doccola, J. J., Bristol, E. J., Sifleet, S. D., Lojko, J., and Wild, P. M. 2007. Efficacy and duration of trunk-injected imidacloprid in the management of hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33(1):12–21. 29. Doccola, J. J., and Wild, P. M. 2012. Tree Injection as an Alternative Method of Insecticide Application. Insecticides - Basic and Other Applications. Arborjet, Inc. Woburn, MA USA. 30. Dujesiefken, D., and Liese, W. 2008. The CODIT Principle: Implications for Best Practices. International Society of Arboriculture. 31. Ellmore, G. S., Phair, W. E., Gill, C., and Skinner, D. 1988. Fluid delivery in injected ring-porous trees. Journal of Arboriculture 14(10): 233-239. 32. Fischbach, J. E., and Webster, B. 1982. New method of injecting iron into pin oaks. Journal of Arboriculture 9(8): 1-1. 33. Lanier, G. N. 1988. Therapy for Dutch elm disease. Journal of Arboriculture 14(9):229-232. 34. McDougall, D. N., and Blanchette, R. A. 1996. Polyethylene plastic wrap for tree wounds: A promoter of wound closure on fresh wounds. Journal of Arboriculture 22(5): 207-210. 35. Neljubov, D. 1901. Uber die horizontale nutation der Stengel von Pisum sativum und einiger anderer Pflanzen. Beih. Bot. Centralb. 10: 128–139. 36. Neely, D. 1970. Healing of wounds on trees. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95(5):135-140. 37. Percival, G. C. 2001. Induction of systemic acquired disease resistance in plants: potential implications for disease management in urban forestry. Journal of Arboriculture 27(4):181-192. 38. Perry, T. O., Santamour, F. S. Jr., Stipes, R. J., Shear, T., and Shigo, A. L. 1991. Exploring alternatives to tree injection. Journal of Arboriculture 17(8): 217-226. 39. Phair, W. E., and Ellmore, G. S. 1984. Improved trunk injection for control of Dutch elm disease. Journal of Arboriculture 10: 273- 278. 40. Richard G. Alvarez. 1977. Growth regulators. Journal of Arboriculture. 3(5):94-97. 41. Sánchez-Zamora, M. A., and Escobar, R. F. 2000. Injector-size and the time of application affects uptake of tree trunk-injected solutions. Scientia Horticulturae 84: 163-177. 42. Sánchez-Zamora, M. A., and Fernández-Escobar, R. 2004. Uptake and distribution of trunk injection in conifers. Journal of Arboriculture 30(2): 73-79. 43. Shigo, A. L., and Campana, R. 1977. Discolored and decayed wood associated with injection wounds in American elm. Journal of Arboriculture 3(12): 230-235. 44. Shigo, A. L., and Marx, H. G. 1977. Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 405 July. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. 45. Stack, R. W. 1985. Effect of tree size, hole location, and wetwood fluxing on healing of injection wound in American elms. Journal of Arboriculture 11(2): 45-47. 46. Stipes, R. J. 1988. Glitches and gaps in the science and technology of tree injection. Journal of Arboriculture 14(7): 165-172. 47. Wasniewski, T. A., Chaney, W. R., and Holt, H. A. 1993. Hole angle for trunk injection of tree growth regulators and its effect on weeping, wound closure and wood discoloration. Journal of Arboriculture 19(3): 131-138. 48. Wright, D. C., and Moran, J. T. 1989. Internal wounding associated with atrinal injections in Norway maple. Journal of Arboriculture 15(4): 94-98. 49. Yang, S. F. and N. E. Hoffman. 1984. Ethylene Biosynthesis and It’s Regulation in Higher Plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35: 155-189. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/70349 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 由於環境的限制,當都市林樹木發生病害時,通常較難以實施化學性的藥劑噴灑進行醫療,此時注射技術的運用是一個很好的替代方法。此方法具有 (1) 能有效地使用化學物質, (2) 減少潛在的環境暴露, (3) 當以土壤澆灌無效或難以使用葉面噴灑時有用,(4)適用於人口稠密地區等優點。以治療為目的在樹上進行鑚孔並注入藥劑的相關研究在19 世紀初期已有相當進展,運用上除了防治病蟲害以外,也擴及到營養改善、生長調節劑控制、抗病誘導等方向。對於注射操作過程所需考慮的注射位置、孔徑、深度、角度、壓力、封口、季節、藥劑、及追加注射等注意事項,隨著研究以及新事證出現,皆使得注射之技術不斷提升。
本研究旨在研發符合本土運用之樹木注射技術,依照不同樹皮形式,先以100(#) 粗砂紙或直徑 3.5 公分木工取孔刀刨除木栓層,再用直徑 1 公分電鑽,刮除韌皮部露出木質部,用 2 平方公分防水膠帶貼合木質部和形成層切口後再行鑽孔注射。注射是以 0.4 公分直徑的鑽頭鑽孔,深度為 1 公分,插入刻度滴管後以矽利康搭配透氣膠帶完成封口進行滴管輸液。標準步驟為「表皮和木栓層研磨衛生處理含酒精消毒、直徑 1 公分電鑽刮除韌皮部和形成層露出木質部後貼上防水膠帶、直徑 0.4 公分電鑽鑽出深度 1 公分之注射孔、插入刻度塑膠滴管並固定、以中性矽利康封口、透氣膠帶密合防漏、注入藥液、插入尼龍繩排出氣泡、套上銀黑塑膠布保護套」,經測試防漏效果甚佳,觀察藥液之吸收也十分便利。而所費時間約 10 分鐘,是一可以接受之淺層注射技術。此為樹木解剖及生理學基礎下,符合科學、經濟、實用的樹木淺層醫療注射技術,可為專業操作者參考採用。 研究調查出各樹種淺層注射主要吸收日數與劑量為:鳳凰木 2 日 9.47 毫升,楓香 8 日 24.4 毫升,龍眼 4 日 31.41 毫升,光蠟樹 5 日 37.7 毫升,莿桐 3 日 25.7 毫升,烏桕 8 日 21.3 毫升,朴樹 5 日 66.97 毫升,山櫻花 6 日 51.47 毫升,櫸樹 6 日 54.03 毫升,樟樹 7 日 56.83 毫升,榕樹 4 日 5.67 毫升,濕地松因春天松脂分泌旺盛全無吸收。當植物不再吸收時,便需將注射滴管拔除,並以封口塗劑確實將拔除滴管後遺留之孔洞封填密合,讓根壓水分順利協助藥劑運送至目標作用區域,也避免刻度滴管妨礙到注射口之癒合。三種淺層注射於木質部吸收之比較,發現基本上以弦向 45 度向下 2 公分之吸收速率最大。證明樹木的外圍生長輪吸收效率高,因此注射鑽孔不用深。而韌皮部無法吸收注射藥劑,且不同的藥劑劑型和濃度對韌皮部會有不同程度的傷害反應。注射藥劑向下運行,是藉由樹木體內橫向疏導系統,將木質部藥劑運送至韌皮部後,再由韌皮部篩管向下運送。因此,注射時應避免藥劑接觸到韌皮部和形成層以促進注射傷口癒合。 利用益收和能夠抑制乙烯生合成的艾維激素對樹幹進行注射,並以水做為參考對照,以驗證 CODIT 可能的啟動因子是否即為乙烯,結果證明注射艾維激素的樣本,有較大的傷害反應。而不同樹種注射 3 個月後之傷口癒合反應調查結果,刺桐最佳,光蠟樹次之,其他樹種緩慢。原注射點追加注射實驗,觀察榕樹之吸收反應,結果證明樹木似有產生區隔化。對於必須週期性注射的操作建議,可採用本研究研發之淺層注射技術,搭配長效期藥劑,以兩年為期,每次注射皆在最外圍生長輪操作,如此便可有效降低注射過程可能對樹木造成的傷害,讓藥劑有效的吸收運行至作用目標區,達到樹木注射醫療照護目的,及衍生出的最大效益。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Urban trees are very important for improving the environmental quality of a city. They may also be a risk to the resident when they are infected by tree diseases. The purpose of a tree therapy is to keep the health of the trees and the environment so as to avoid the risk from diseased trees. However, because of the limitation of space, when the urban trees are infected they can not be cured by conventional methods as those of wild trees. At such circumstance a trunk injection is more appropriate for cure the disease. The trunk injection has many advantages including: (1) higher efficient utilization of the pesticides; (2) lower pesticide exposure; (3) a better choice when soil drenching or shoot spraying are not available; (4) suitable for residential areas.
The history of trunk injection for a tree could be traced to early 19th century, when people used it to fuse the nutrition, inject a growth regulator, induce disease resistance, or conquer a disease. The injection technology was gradually improved as scientists tried more and more on the appropriate injection point, hole size, depth, angle, pressure, season, chemicals, and the timing for re-injection. This study is therefore aimed to develop a suitable shallow-layer injection technique for use at our urban environment. The trunk surfaces were polished with sand paper or a 3.5 cm drill knife to remove the cork layer and disinfected with alcohol. A 1 cm drill was used to remove the phloem layer and expose the xylem layer then a 0.4 cm radial hole was drilled for 1 cm deep for inserting a scaled PE dropper for infusing the solution. The standard operating procedures are: surface polishing and disinfection, hole drilled by an electrical drill, inserting a scaled PE dropper, sealed with sterile cotton and neutral silicon gel, to avoid leakage by a breathable tape, filling with solution, to remove air bubble by a nylon cord, and covering the dropper with a silver-black plastic envelop. The solution leakage can be completely avoided and the infusion can be quantitatively observed with this device. It takes only about 10 minute for an operation and is an acceptable injection technique for physiological or therapeutic studies for urban trees. The infusion rates for major trees measured by this technique expressed as numbers of uptake days and uptake volume are: 2 days /9.47 mL for flame tree, 3 days /19 mL for fragrant maple, 4 days /31 mL for longan tree, 3 days /34 mL for Formosan ash, 3 days /34 mL for India coral tree, 3 days /34 mL for tallow tree, 4 days /49 mL for Chinese hackberry, 6 days /52 mL for Taiwan cherry, 5 days /42 mL for Taiwan zelkova, 7 days /54 mL for camphor tree, 3 days /5 mL for banyan tree. Only the pine tree did not uptake solution because of the strong excretion of pine resin. The infusion rates measured in three injection methods at different angle/depth on trunks of banyan trees by this technique were compared with each other. Results showed that a tangential hole at 2 cm deep can uptake more than a radial hole at 6 cm deep, each with uptake days and volume of 4 days/11.3 other than 4 days/ 11.2 mL, respectively. This result proves that the transfusion at young wood region play the most important role for a tree. Therefore it is not necessary to inject into deep wood for a therapy injection. The phloem is proved to not be able to infuse directly the solution, but the solution is moved to the crosswise or lateral xylem cells first then move to the downward phloem tubes. The phloem in wound hole will be hurt by the solution especially when the concentration of chemicals is too high. The CODIT (Compartmentalization Of Decay In Trees) concept was also proposed and testified in this study, using an ethylene-producing Ethephon and an ethylene inhibitor aminothoxyvinglycine to infuse in the trunks of banyan trees and Taiwan zelkova. Results showed the injected hole of Taiwan zelkova with aminothoxyvinglycine did not show CODIT response and were injured with wood cracking symptoms. The recovery of the wound holes of 12 tree species were compared after three months. Results showed that the flame tree recovered the best, followed by the Formosan ash, and all the others. All the results exhibit that this shallow-layer injection technique is appropriate for trunk injection with long-acting fungicides that have the greater advantage and lower damage to the trees and urban environment. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:26:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R03645005-1.pdf: 10412675 bytes, checksum: 6368ddf268987880c593fffc4d63c294 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝 ii
中文摘要 iii Abstract v 表⽬錄 x 圖目錄 x 第⼀章 前⾔1 第⼆章 前⼈研究 4 第三章 材料與⽅法 12 ⼀、樹⽊表層注射前衛⽣處理之⽐較 12 ⼆、樹⽊淺層注射技術的改進 13 (⼀)刻度滴管應⽤於觀測注射液體之吸收速率(含壓管釘、套袋、尼⿓繩)13 (⼆)封⼝塗劑之篩選及測試 14 (三)⽥間淺層注射之實作 15 三、三種淺層注射於⽊質部吸收之⽐較 17 (⼀)實驗材料 17 (⼆)實驗⽅法 17 四、不同樹種對淺層注射吸收反應之⽐較 18 五、樹⽊淺層⾼濃度注射之藥害試驗 19 六、樹⽊注射後損害區隔化之觀察 21 七、樹⽊淺層注射不同樹種傷⼝癒合速度之⽐ 23 ⼋、樹⽊淺層注射後之追加注射試驗 24 第四章 結果 26 ⼀、樹⽊表層注射前衛⽣處理之⽐較 26 ⼆、樹⽊淺層注射技術的改進 29 三、三種淺層注射於⽊質部吸收之⽐較 31 四、不同樹種對淺層注射吸收反應之⽐較 33 五、樹⽊淺層⾼濃度注射之藥害試驗 37 六、樹⽊注射後損害區隔化之觀察 38 七、樹⽊淺層注射不同樹種傷⼝癒合速度之⽐較 42 ⼋、樹⽊淺層注射後之追加注射試驗 46 第五章 討論 50 ⼀、樹⽊表層注射前衛⽣處理之⽐較 50 ⼆、樹⽊淺層注射技術的改進 50 三、三種淺層注射於⽊質部吸收之⽐較 51 四、不同樹種對淺層注射吸收反應之⽐較 52 五、樹⽊淺層⾼濃度注射之藥害試驗 53 六、樹⽊注射後損害區隔化之觀察 54 七、樹⽊淺層注射不同樹種傷⼝癒合速度之⽐較 55 ⼋、樹⽊淺層注射後之追加注射試驗 56 第六章結論 58 ⼀、注射位置與樹⽪之衛⽣與保護 58 ⼆、新的注射技術 58 三、刻度滴管輸液 59 四、⼩徑淺孔注射 59 五、韌⽪部藥害試驗 59 六、樹⽊損害區隔化 (CODIT ) 啟動因⼦之探討 60 七、傷⼝癒合快慢⽐較 60 ⼋、藥效與藥效維持之追加注射 60 參考⽂獻 61 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 樹木淺層藥劑注射技術之研發與應用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Development and application of shallow trunk injection technology for tree therapy | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳孟玲,林法勤,郭章信 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 淺層藥液注射,注射吸收,傷口恢復,CODIT啟動因子, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Shallow-layer trunk injection,Infusion uptake,Wound recovery,CODIT promoter, | en |
dc.relation.page | 64 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803383 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-14 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 植物醫學碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
Appears in Collections: | 植物醫學碩士學位學程 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf Restricted Access | 10.17 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.