Keizer's Fungi Q & A.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony,

Conclusion : your first hunch was correct : it is Lycoperdon pyriforme, so the score now is two out of five.

 

I had a hard time with them, i didnt realise they was so odd in shape and brittle like this when forming, pyriforme is no suprise as it was my first thought it was only shape and flesh that confused me.

 

thats a usefull early ident feature then:thumbup1:

[tommer9]

Yet another fantastic resource offered to the world of Arb. Thank you.

 

 

Anytime you want to babysit for a couple hours just say....the beauty rapidly wears off with this one

 

just ask tommer and ady if you dont believe me, they've witnessed her in action! haha

 

She is an amazing bundle of energy, but totally lovely too:thumbup:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Knew I had one somewhere, as promised:thumbup:

 

The butt rot in this malus "profusion" had obviously been going on for some time before the switch to "death mode" cambium killer started

 

the mellea

[sean freeman]

Hello Gerrit from here in Australia, I would alos like to thank you for giing of your time to discuss matters mycological with Arbophiles from all parts....

 

I have a question relating to some anecdotal observations (by others) regarding Meripilus giganteus.

 

It has been posited that there might be two (or more) forms, which have different impacts on the host tree.

 

Now I am NOT trying to pour cold water on these thoughts merely to ask what your view is. I asked the same of Francis Schwarze two months ago whilst he was delivering a workshop on Phellinus noxious, Francis had not heard this idea (of the different forms) before and felt he had seen no evidence himself to suggest it might be the case.

 

My own thoughts are like some of the Phellinus sp I see here in Oz, that Meripilus giganteus is responding to the range of conditions present in the host tree..which may well be (often is!) imperceptable to the unaided eye (without microscope).

[Fungus]

I have a question relating to some anecdotal observations (by others) regarding Meripilus giganteus.

It has been posited that there might be two (or more) forms, which have different impacts on the host tree.

Now I am NOT trying to pour cold water on these thoughts merely to ask what your view is. I asked the same of Francis Schwarze two months ago whilst he was delivering a workshop on Phellinus noxious, Francis had not heard this idea (of the different forms) before and felt he had seen no evidence himself to suggest it might be the case.

My own thoughts are like some of the Phellinus sp I see here in Oz, that Meripilus giganteus is responding to the range of conditions present in the host tree..which may well be (often is!) imperceptable to the unaided eye (without microscope).

 

Hello Sean,

 

Interesting question, especially because I had a discussion on this subject with Francis Schwartze more then ten years ago, which he now does not seem to remember ?

 

In my field research, I have looked into the impact of Meripilus giganteus on various tree species for 20 years and after microscopical research of many in vitro or in situ collected samples, I have come to the conclusion, that there is only species and one form. In this respect, bear in mind that most of the research on Meripilus done by Schwartze was in vitro, i.e. under laboratory conditions without taking the ecology or tree species specific ecosystems of the affected trees into account.

 

However, Meripilus giganteus is a (biotrophic) parasitic species with highly adaptive "skills" and the capability of easily and fast adjusting its strategies on the host under attack. Twenty years ago, in The Netherlands Meripilus giganteus only was reported from beeches. Today I not only have documented it on a regular base from Fagus, but also from 13 other deciduous tree species, Quercus robur/rubra, Carpinus, Betula, Aesculus, Platanus, Tilia, Ulmus, Fraxinus, Acer, Populus, Prunus, Malus and Corylus and once from a Metasequoia.

 

Destabilisation of the tree under attack is highly dependend on the tree species and the tree species specific strategy the mycelium applies, as M. giganteus can dispose of a dual strategy of white rotting and/or soft rotting combined with decomposition of pectin to attack different parts of the tree, i.e. the (lower side of the) roots, the buttresses and/or sub-surface wood with, so there is quite a difference in impact on the condition and stability of a tree species such as Tilia compared to Quercus robur.

 

To evaluate the condition of a tree under attack, one should always first take the tree species specific ecosystem and the presence or absence of certain macrofungi, like ectomycorrhizal symbionts, into consideration, as each tree species has its species specific dynamics of the ecosystem the tree is the center of and the tree and its partners have their specific ways of "communicating" about the actual situation the total ecosystem is in. One should especially look for signs in the body language of the tree and phenomenons such as emergency reproduction of the tree and/or the macrofungi fruiting on or living in association with the tree.

 

An example of a not by old age, but by M. giganteus triggered "emergency" reaction of a tree and one of its associated ectomycorrhizal pioneer symbionts can be found in the interaction of Fagus and Laccaria amethystina. A beech loosing its major roots after destruction by the mycelium of Meripilus, forms secundary roots originating from its base. The roots are colonized by the "awoken" mycelium of L. amethystina, which then fruits within half a metre around the base of the tree (warning sign). The mycelium absorbs rain water running down from the trunk and takes up nutrients from the soil which it delivers to the tree, after which the condition and quality of the foliage of the central crown improves, the tree produces lots of fertile seeds containing an energy reserve for two years and this way invests in off spring, which germinates in the circle around the tree base, where the mycelium of L. amethystina awaits them to be colonized.

Once the roots of the seedling are colonized, the interconnecting mycelium acts as a go between and the young tree gets its energy and nutrients both directly from the soil and - like through an umbilical cord - indirectly from the old tree until the seedling has enough foliage (photosynthesis) to stand on its own feet and supply its symbiotic partner with sugars himself, after which the indirect connection with the old tree is cut off.

 

The phenomenon of forming compensatory secondary roots has also been documented for tree species without ectomycorrhizal partners, such as Platanus (see photo).

 

And then there is the fairy tale of beeches "overcoming" an infection by Meripilus, because the mycelium does not fruit for some years. In this situation, the mycelium has gone "underground" to decompose the below ground level heartwood and only surfaces again and often for the last time after the destructive work is done. I once witnessed a 150 years old, judged by its foliage "vital" beech, which as a warning sign, after six years of absence, was surrounded by many extremely large fruitbodies (emergency reproduction) of Meripilus, slowly "sink" down its "manhole" until the base of the trunk was one metre in the earth and then slowly tip over until its crown touched the ground.

 

A final question. Which hosts other then the ones I already mentioned, did you document for Meripilus down under and does Meripilus also attack eucalypts and Nothofagus ?

 

The following photo's are attached.

1. Beech with only for the second time (!!!) fruitbodies of Meripilus at one side of its base and a vertical frost wound with cambium leakage above.

2. The base of the trunk of the same beech with a decayed center, cut at 30 centimetres above ground level, the decay of the heartwood continued up to 8 metres and even penetrated the heartwood of the lower major branches.

3. Platanus with Meripilus and formation of secondary roots.

4. Emergency reproduction of Meripilus from the last living roots of the vertical root plate of a beech fallen down without warning : the killer exposes itself only after the damage is done.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Fungus

[David Humphries]

2. The base of the trunk of the same beech after it was cut, with a decayed center, the decay of the heartwood continued up to 8 metres and even penetrated the heartwood of the lower major branches.

.

 

I am supprised by this Gerrit, I had assumed/read that Meripulus was a basal/root decay & that it was not thought to ingress up the trunk.

 

I have been managing this Beech with M. giganteus for ten years.

 

Obviously the heavy topping stabilised the Tree.

 

The Picus did not pick up on any decay up the trunk (at the time), and the airspading did not show significant decay in the lateral roots which were uncovered.

 

 

This Beech has had Meripulus fruiting for around ten years.

Picus was in '06

Reduction was in '06

Airspade was in '08

 

& last shot was last year.

 

 

.

 

.

[David Humphries]

Hello again Gerrit,

 

could you clarify for me what is a 'Melinine plate' ?

 

many thanks

 

 

David

 

 

.

[Fungus]

could you clarify for me what is a 'Melanine plate' ?

 

David,

Just as the black melanine layer surrounding a shoe string resembling rhizomorph does, a melanine sheet or layer (not plate, sorry for my poor English) covers the vulnerable white hyphae of an Armillaria species colonizing the surface of the (heart) wood (on the inside) of a tree trunk cavity and protects it from soil acids or "vinegar" acids secreted by Quercus robur (and Castanea sativa) and attacks of insects, bacteria and/or microfungi.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have known for some time that there was so much more work needed in relation to fungi and trees, it seems much of it has been done, but not widely communicated.

 

I am going to bin everything I thought I knew from here in.

 

I know of no-one here in the U.K that has this information, the response and presence of ectomycorrhizal fungi as an indicator is an absolutely brilliant insight.

[Matthew Arnold]

Hi Gerrit. Whilst sorting out my work pictures i found these little critters. The first two pictures are of a small white bracket fungi. It was growing on a Hazel stub that had been cut 3 years previously. We had heavy rainfall the week prior to taking the picture. The second pair of pictures are of a similar bracket on a dead ash limb that had dropped. The last 3 pictures were taken at the base of an ill cherry tree measuring aprox 18 inch dbh. It has since fallen over but is still growing. Any ideas?