Inonotus as a saprophyte

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Yeah they're small fruiting bodies, but there are loads of big old ones from last year. Interesting site though as there's loads of inonotus on the oaks, one tree has them nearly 2m from the stem on the ground. One very large oak does seem to be losing the battle though with almost no living roots at all on one side. Id like to reduce that one a little

 

if the fruit comes off root its time is up!

[Fungus]

I would personally consider the majority of decay fungi as primarily saprophytic, with some of them only in specific circumstances turning to a parasitic form.

Fungi in trees are simply taking advantage of a situation where there is dry wood to decay in a sheltered enclosed environment, which offers them stability. Some are also capitalising on being in there early with a pioneering colonisation strategy, which enables them to grow with limited competition.

The enclosure within the tree offers them a place where there is less competition, because the species we associate with such decay are frequently those that are able to survive in spore form within the living wood. Such species can take advantage of the early colonisation of the wood and frequently their mode of decay is very specialist as a result.

I suspect that we do not see Inonotus dryadeus on fallen logs or dead trees more often, because at this stage of the log decay process there is so much competition from other fungi.

I think for example that the situation you describe could have occurred because the tree was blown over early (so to speak) and the Inonotus was still growing in the trunk and stump in an unrestricted form without significant competition to limit its spread.

 

Andrew,

In discussing decay strategies (white and/or soft rot) of annual parasitic and/or saprotrophic Inonotus species, one should consider, that there always is an exception to the general rule of the interaction of an Inonotus species and the tree species under attack defending itself as an individual, i.e. to the tree species specific ecosystem of the tree species and the more or less tree species specific macrofungi concerned.

And then there is the aspect of the mycelium either being parasitic or saprotrophic, while the annual fruiting always takes place by decomposition of dead wood as a saprotrophic.

- Inonotus dryadeus is listed as biotrophic and/or sometimes necrotrophic parasitic, which means it can (panic) fruit on dead Quercus as long as there is enough cellulose available for the mycelium to "consume" and convert.

- Inonotus hispidus is listed as biotrophic parasitic, which means the fruiting stops once the tree dies.

- Inonotus cuticularis is listed as saprotrophic.

- Inonotus radiatus is listed as saprotrophic.

- Inonotus nodulosus is listed as saprotrophic on dead trunks of beech, although bark canker of branches by the mycelium has been documented.

- Inonotus rheades is listed as necrotrophic parasitic, but only fruits as a saprotrophic on dead trunks of Populus.

- Inonotus obliquus is listed as a biotrophic parasite.

- Inonotus dryophilus is listed as biotrophic parasitic.

- Inonotus hastifer is listed as parasitic on the mycelium of Antrodiella hoehnelii and saprotrophic on dead wood.

Also see : Inonotus strategies.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Fungus

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

- Inonotus hispidus is listed as biotrophic parasitic, which means the fruiting stops once the tree dies.

- Inonotus cuticularis is listed as saprotrophic.

- Inonotus radiatus is listed as saprotrophic.

 

I would 100% not agree with hispidus classification

80% disagree with the cuticularis classification

and Im 50/50 about the radiatus, watching a nice vet alder struggle with this as we speak, has been fruiting for two years that i know off errupting through bark on a live tree

[Fungus]

- Inonotus hispidus is listed as biotrophic parasitic, which means the fruiting stops once the tree dies.

- Inonotus cuticularis is listed as saprotrophic.

- Inonotus radiatus is listed as saprotrophic.

1. I would 100% not agree with hispidus classification

2. 80% disagree with the cuticularis classification

3. and Im 50/50 about the radiatus, watching a nice vet alder struggle with this as we speak, has been fruiting for two years that i know off errupting through bark on a live tree

 

Tony,

1. 100 % not agree meaning you always find newly formed annual brackets fruiting on all the dead and completely defoliated trees I. hispidus is documented from ?

2. Can you prove, that in this 20 % the fruiting of annual brackets is produced by mycelium, which is not only decomposing dead wood (saprotrophic), but also is invading and killing the still living cambium as a parasite to "feed" the developing brackets at the same time ?

3. Did you (microscopically) identify the mycelium invading and killing the cambium of these trees, including the nice veteran alder, because producing annual brackets "erupting through bark on a live tree", which is only done by mycelium decomposing (cellulose of) dead (heart)wood, is no evidence of I. radiatus being parasitic, as from the inside of the tree fruiting primordia always use the shortest way out and/or the "pathway" with the least resistance (f.i. radial rays ending in a "sleeping" branch bud) to bring the annual initially soft brackets to full development.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

You know i cant do the technical at the mo, no scopes no petri dish hepa filter or lab.

 

BUT...

 

Hispidus I have documented albeit probably panic fruiting on fallen long dead branches and trees, will find images.

 

inonotus cuticularis, is DEFO into live tissues and as with my fistulina hypothesis i have my own ideas on that particular fungi and I do havce a VERY good site for study.

 

regarding the radiatus, photos to follow.

[Fungus]

Inonotus cuticularis, is DEFO into live tissues

 

Here is some documentation of the typical fruiting of I. cuticularis from dead wood of beech.

The fruiting at greater height on the beech in the first photo started one year after the tree's death caused by M. giganteus and K. deusta. The photo with FB's from the first and second year was taken in the second year after the tree died and the annual fruiting lasted for five years in a row.

The second photo shows I. cuticularis fruiting from dead wood in a massive wound of a halfway split bifurcated beech. Although some brackets to the right seem to be partially attached to live tissue, in the samples taken there was no microscopical evidence of hyphae invading and killing the newly formed callus and/or cambium layers.

---

Edited June 25, 2011 by Fungus

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

in your cases above they are small diameter younger trees though.

 

I believe it is the fungi responsible for the most pronounced wrinkles and folds in beech, if it wasnt into live tissue such distinctive folds would not happen.

 

surely?

 

What im suggesting is that Cuticularis is not probably killing the live tissue but modifying it.

 

 

 

[Fungus]

1. in your cases above they are small diameter younger trees though.

2. I believe it is the fungi responsible for the most pronounced wrinkles and folds in beech, if it wasnt into live tissue such distinctive folds would not happen. surely? What im suggesting is that Cuticularis is not probably killing the live tissue but modifying it.

 

1. No, the small diameter is caused by both trees not being solitary, but part of (originally) rather dense beech woods with intensive light competition planted in the period 1860-1870, which by Dutch standards means they are quite old and have entered the final phase of their live cycle.

And because both trees are at the edge of beech forests, which are strongly under the influence of ammonia coming from close by heavily manured maize fields, the ecosystems (soil food webs) of both trees are severely damaged, causing the tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts (Russula, Lactarius) to disappear and the defensive system of the trees and roots to weaken.

2. If fungi are responsible for wrinkles and folds in beeches (or other trees), it is because their mycelia undermine and change the flexibility/stiffness ratio of the dead wood of the trunk by degrading cellulose or cellulose and lignin, not by invading live tissue, which only reacts to and compensates for the changes in the flexibility/stiffness ratio of the central wood.

Besides, I don't see folds or wrinkles and/or modification of live tissue, i.e. signs of canker or necrosis, I see healthy reaction wood (callus) trying to overgrow and close massive and deeply rotten wounds and to compensate for the loss of stability caused by the decayed central wood.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

If fungi do not alter live tissue why do we see different body languages with different fungi?

[Fungus]

If fungi do not alter live tissue why do we see different body languages with different fungi?

 

I was referring to saprotrophic macrofungi decomposing dead wood, which - IMO - I. cuticularis is, not to (biotrophic or necrotrophic) parasitic macrofungi altering and/or killing live tissue and causing (bleeding) cankers or necrosis.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Fungus