The Ganoderma thread!

[sean]

from these images is it possible to say if it is Adspersum or Applamatum? Or indeed something else......if so what are the clues from a purely visual; perspective? thanks

 

Sean

[Fungus]

from these images is it possible to say if it is Adspersum or Applamatum? Or indeed something else......if so what are the clues from a purely visual; perspective?

 

Sean,

The macroscopic characteristics and the host (beech) point in the direction of Ganoderma lipsiense (= G. applanatum), but without the presence of nipple-shaped galls of Agathomyia wankowisczi, microscopic identification by measering the spores is needed to be 100 % sure.

[Fungus]

In my Album (Tilia + Ganoderma), Tony asked me to describe the characteristics of the sterile emergency reproduction "lumps" of perennial Ganoderma's, such as G. lipsiense and G. australe.

Sometimes they have a smooth greyish to pale brown surface, sometimes a greyish, partially blackening and cracking surface (see photo of G. lipsiense on beech, also showing Ustulina deusta to the right), they can be up to 10-15 centimetres in diameter and they never have developed fertile layers of tubes with pores.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Fungus

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

In my Album (Tilia + Ganoderma), Tony asked me to describe the characteristics of the sterile emergency reproduction "lumps" of perennial Ganoderma's, such as G. lipsiense and G. australe.

Sometimes they have a smooth greyish to pale brown surface, sometimes a greyish, partially blackening and cracking surface (see photo of G. lipsiense on beech, also showing Ustulina deusta to the right), they can be up to 10-15 centimetres in diameter and they never have developed fertile layers of tubes with pores.

 

thanks gerrit:thumbup1:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Having just gone over the whole thread although it has been covered it appears I have not made this 100% clear.

 

Regarding these ganodermas we MUST learn from mistakes that have been made in this field. Mistaking ganoderma australe for applanatum is going to wind you in court should you ever come up against an expert witness with good mycological training!

 

These two fungi simply MUST be fully evaluated by trained mycologists by spore characteristics via a microscope if the tree is to be retained. This is because they have VERY different capacity and strategies, australe can consume tillia (lime) and horse chestnut at an alarming rate, ie see the fruit and your in trouble.

 

Trees that are particulary dangerous when decayed by this fungi (G. australe) tend to be those with weak compartmentalisation abilities or lacking a durable heartwood. For example in Q, robur it can be merely a cavity former and lower root decay, managable via retrenchment proceedures. However in Q. cerris (see images below) it is a savage consumer and should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

 

PICUS- can reveal very little about the rot at times, due to the lack of differentiation in the image results, and an Increment core is the most reliable method of evaluation, also providing a solid sample as evidence if reqiured.

 

Do not underestimate this fungi, it is in the top ten most dangerous IMO.

 

 

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Ganoderma australe on tillia:sneaky2:

 

 

 

 

[RobArb]

is the only way to differentiate 100% via microscopy?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Despite what we have said about Quercus roburs somewhat more resilient nature, we must not underestimate its abilities when the tree is stressed. We also must allow for there to be very little evidence of its pressence bar a few sterile bulbs as previously mentioned.

 

here we see what ganoderma australe is capable of on Q. robur, and the only evidence a few sterile bulbs of panic fruiting to escape the host.

 

So I hope this little series has proved valuable insight into the serious liability posed by this most aggressive ganoderma.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Ganoderma australe colonised horse chestnut, (the Anne frank tree scenario)

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

is the only way to differentiate 100% via microscopy?

 

 

YES, 100%

 

A leading expert did not, and ident was made via a mycologist (he/she should have known better) on photo evidence alone, it ended in disaster.