The Meripilus thread!

[David Humphries]

http://modernarb.com/assets/media/Seeing%20Is%20Believing.pdf

 

Meripilus sumstinei (MushroomExpert.Com)

 

 

 

Tony, do you suggest that this other species is or could be over this side of the pond?

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony, do you suggest that this other species is or could be over this side of the pond?

 

 

 

.

 

would explain some very definite differences in appearance dont you think?

 

Do not know just putting it out there in the ether:001_cool:

[David Humphries]

would explain some very definite differences in appearance dont you think?

 

Do not know just putting it out there in the ether:001_cool:

 

Interesting.

 

Obviously there's nothing listed on FRDBI (but wonder as Gerrit often does) how many of those 2000 + records are not 100% scoped ?

 

 

Would be intriquing to see/hear if there are any records on the continent.

 

 

 

.

[Fungus]

Obviously there's nothing listed on FRDBI (but wonder as Gerrit often does) how many of those 2000 + records are not 100% scoped ? Would be intriquing to see/hear if there are any records on the continent.

 

Not just not scoped (I think none of the U.K. or Dutch records is), but also not documented with specimen of all recorded findings in a herbarium, so if you want to know whether this species is present in the U.K. and/or on the continent, you'll have to start scoping and documenting (herbarium collection) every new find from now on, until there is at least one accepted record from Europe.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Not just not scoped (I think none of the U.K. or Dutch records is), but also not documented with specimen of all recorded findings in a herbarium, so if you want to know whether this species is present in the U.K. and/or on the continent, you'll have to start scoping and documenting (herbarium collection) every new find from now on, until there is at least one accepted record from Europe.

 

Would be an interesting long term project, when I have scopes I will begin!

[Fungus]

In another thread, I already posed the following question : "Can anyone explain why Meripilus giganteus is extremely rare to even non-existing for several decades in undisturbed beech woodlands on the European continent and at the same time is present to such a still increasing extreme in managed woodlands and on urban and rural beeches ?

 

Robin said it's because of "the little "good" funguys in woodland ecosystems" and David Goss suggested that "root systems are less likely to be damaged in woodland environments so the Merip has to fight harder to get a hold" .

 

As a reaction to Ted Green's article, I start with rephrasing both above statements and add 16 other differences between beeches in undisturbed woodlands and beeches in managed woodlands and urban or rural environments :

 

- Beeches in urban and rural environments and their root systems are often damaged mechanically (lawn mower, cars, cables, sewer system, road works, building activities, etc.).

- The tree species specific soil food webs of beeches in managed woodlands and in urban and/or rural environments lack essential tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts, that are part of and ever present in the soil food webs of beeches in beech dominated undisturbed beech woodlands with beeches of all ages.

- Because of this, beeches in managed woodlands and urban or rural environments are unable to complete their full life cycle with all the successive phases of the tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts without interruptions or skipping phases in the tree species specific life cycle.

- The "mix" of parasites, symbionts and recyclers in the soil food webs of urban and rural trees is unbalanced and differs greatly from the natural balance in undisturbed beech woodlands (20 % ectomycorrhizae, 78 % saprotrophic, 2 % biotrophic or saprotrophic parasitic).

- Because of the lack of some of all of the essential ectomycorrhizal symbionts, the defensive system of the roots, the tree and its foliage is underdeveloped, which makes the tree vulnerable for pathogens and diseases.

- The ever increasing abundance of pathogens present in managed beech woodlands and urban and/or rural environments makes it easy for parasitic fungi to spread over "short distance" with spores (300 kilometres) and/or rhizomorphs (1 metre a year).

- Underdevelopment and/or absence of the mycelia of less present tree species specific symbionts in managed beech woods and urban and/or rural environments leads to "malnutrition" and a poorer access to water resources.

- As opposed to the presence of beeches of all ages in undisturbed beech woodlands, beeches in lanes and managed beech woodlands are of the same age, which makes them all vulnerable for pathogens at the same.

- The superficial root system of beeches in undisturbed beech woodland does not have to compete with grass and plants for water (drip line).

- The ectomycorrhizae of beeches in undisturbed woodlands do not have to compete for nutrients with the endomycorrhizae of plants and grasses.

- In undisturbed beech woodlands recycling of all organic residue is complete thus keeping the food chain of the tree's ecosystem intact, beeches in urban and rural environments lack leave litter and recycling of essential elements of the food chain.

- Beeches surrounded by plants and grasses are vulnerable for root damage by larvae of insects (cockchafer) living on/from grass or plant roots.

- Beeches in undisturbed beech woodlands do not suffer from sun scald or strikes of lightning.

- Beeches in urban and rural environments suffer from compaction (road, footpath, cycle track, parked cars, etc.).

- Beeches in urban and rural environment live under extreme conditions : air and water pollution, acidification, nitrification, salt, heavy metals, etc.

- Beeches in urban and rural environments are often pruined, reduced or pollarded.

- Water management and sudden changes in water levels in urban and rural environments can either cause dehydration or "drowning" after flooding of the root system.

- In urban and rural environments, most soil food webs lack essential nutrients and minerals.

 

Finally, Ted comes up with an example of a beech "overgrowing" and surviving an infection with M. giganteus without being windthrown and based upon one case out of thousands of cases illustrating the opposite, declares the exception the rule and the rule exceptional, which is neither scientifically valid nor a sensible thing to do.

So the obvious question is : will he show up, support you and back you up in court if the outcome of his "single case study" has determined your decision on management of a beech with the result of windthrow with material damages ?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have known for a long time that man is a key ingredient in this fungis success, and thanks for taking the time to illustrate the problems Gerrit.

[Fungus]

Ted Green obviously has overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus - apart from being a white rotter of heart wood from the cellulose of which it fruits - being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue (of the lower side of major roots) of beeches in his article and does not explain where the die back of the central crown of beeches with root systems colonized by the mycelium of M. giganteus comes from.

 

I'm taking this back, he has not overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue causing dieback of the central crown, he has distanced (and with this disqualified) himself from what he and his co-author Guy Watson wrote in Fungi on Trees (2011) on page 40 :

 

Meripilus giganteus

Area affected

The fungus attacks the main root structure of trees and particularly the underside of these roots.

Type of decay

M. giganteus causes a white rot, but with a "soft rot" phase in the early stages. It has a particular ability to degrade pectin, a substance that helps bind cells together. Decayed wood becomes brittle and liable to fracture both longitudinally and across the grain.

Impact/Effect/Significance

Careful and regular investigation will be required if trees with large fruiting masses of M. giganteus are to be retained, since such trees have a relatively high incidence of uprooting. The condition of the crown is not a reliable indication of the extent of weakening of the root system, since some affected trees are uprooted while still showing dense foliage, while others die standing. Also the condition of the roots near the surface can be deceptive, since the fungus is sometimes confined to the deeper roots. On the other hand, trees can remain reasonably stable if the fungus is confined to the central wood.

 

Indeed, as Ted says : "Science doesn't stand still - some humans do", as I do in not at face value accepting and implementing the delusion of the day based upon a single case "study", preached by a man, who also stated, that : "Today we are in the 21st century, not still in the age of the Victorians, although in the tree world it appears to be that way sometimes". Speaking of disqualifying his co-author and all other "conservative" arborists in an one-liner .

[David Humphries]

Personally Gerrit, I find it more co-operative to interact with those that put forward their views with a little less attack.

 

Surely we like to be here to share our findings in a healthy & polite debating way?

 

It has to be said that you seem to relish the attack (admitedly in a totaly qualified & scientific way)

 

I just don't think (as a site moderator) it helps the bigger picture of advancing the subject particularly with the audience of students (that we generally are here)

 

From my perspective, Edward Green has done a massive amount to advance the understanding of ecology with (particularly British) Arbs & has opened the doors of perception around the interaction of fungi, trees & people.

 

I don't actually know what Ted's scientific background is (although I understand he was/is employed as an ecologist for the Crown Estate) but I do see his work as being a protagonist & instigator for the 'debate' which in my eyes is worthy of recognition itself.

 

 

regards & respect, David

.

[Fungus]

1. I find it more co-operative to interact with those that put forward their views with a little less attack. Surely we like to be here to share our findings in a healthy & polite debating way? It has to be said that you seem to relish the attack (admitedly in a totaly qualified & scientific way)

2. From my perspective, Edward Green has done a massive amount to advance the understanding of ecology with (particularly British) Arbs & has opened the doors of perception around the interaction of fungi, trees & people. I do see his work as being a protagonist & instigator for the 'debate' which in my eyes is worthy of recognition itself.

 

David,

1. So do I, but "those who play at bowles (in the provocative way he does), must look out for rubbers".

2. From my perspective, he has too, but that gives him no cause to disqualifying others by telling them "some humans stand still" or are "still in the age of the Victorians" if they don't buy his claims at face value.

And what about rewriting page 40 of Fungi on Trees before the second edition is printed and published ?