Tree assessment/forest pathology

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Thanks Gerrit, I understood the relationship as you described sorry if my choice of grammatical syntax was confusing (It confuses lots including me sometimes!)...I was wondering if you knew if this behaviour extended beyond L.betulinus to other Lenzites sp?

 

I would think thats a fair assumption Sean, I would also look at the Tremellas if your interested in this aspect of fungal ecology. The british mycological society publish some fantastic journals through elselvier too which if you havent already seen im sure you would enjoy:thumbup1:

[sean freeman]

Thanks Tony I will follow up on those.

[Fungus]

I was wondering if you knew if this behaviour extended beyond L.betulinus to other Lenzites sp?

 

Sean,

As these relationships are on an one on one species base, I would expect your indigenous Lenzites species (L. acuta) - provided it also is a parasitic successor - to be specialized on another indigenous bracket fungus, which could be a Trametes species too.

And concerning other successive (parasitic) macrofungi, see : Succession of fungi and my contribution on Tremella aurantia to David's Fungi Directory.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

It almost seems wrong not using the term (MTA -copyright G. Keizer) when im looking at trees these days, but i cant yet use the term, which pains me Gerrit! So here is my assessment of the tree via the language of its fungal associations.

 

The tree a grafted variety of pink horse chestnut (carnea?) Roadside spot of ganoderma sp, pulled over for a closer look so here goes. gerrit pull me up on any issues here, i think im getting it now!

 

So Ganoderma on a chestnut, already thats an issue, chestnuts are poor at compartmentalising decay, especially Ganodermas, but its still important to deduce the variety, for if G. australe we have a very serious problem and some urgency required.

 

So, were arbs, we dont have microscopes that are needed in order to 100% certify the species of fungi, Ganodermas especially australe=adspersum/lipsiense=applanatum are notoriously difficult to distinguish without spores and microscopic evaluation, but wait a minute, we DO finally thanks to Gerrit keizer have some clues. We are finally getting this situation nailed down, a goal I have strived to achieve for years!

 

So we now have at our disposal some information that has been maybe not unkown but more like not readily avaliable to US.

 

Ganoderma australe is a biotrophic parasite, meaning it needs life within its host, connection to the living tissues.

 

Ganoderma lipsiense on the other hand is a necrotrophic parasite, meaning it can and indeed does do very well on the host long after its collpase and or death living as a saprotroph for anything up to a decade on fallen trunks with good healthy annual layers added. True that it does make its biggest growths during the first three years of the death and or collapse of the host, but it carries on a happy lifestyle for many many more years after. Ganoderma australe on the other hand all but dies with the host and this is our greatest asset, for it gives us more often than not a very very important indicator, "panic fruiting"

 

Now i had a conversation with a leading consultant a few months back, and he said that as far as the body language of fruit bodies/fungi was concerned he wasnt sold on it, this is a reflection of just how little this subject is studied and understood within our industry. if this leading arboriculturist is not sold on these issues/subject we REALLY must start shouting LOUD about these things.

 

make no mistake, fungi have just as trees do their own body languages, hidden clues to their life's and strategies. We simply MUST focus a great deal of our time and energies on this area of our science, for it enables us to read our assessment subjects with the level of clarity we need so desperately.

 

Claus Mattheck was the first to introduce us to "the body language of trees" his teachings, his work, opened up a whole new world of understanding for us all. Now, Gerrit Keizer is adding another dimension to this by bringing forward a system called MTA "mycological tree assessment" I have absolutely no doubt that this method combined with tree based VTA will constitute the most comprehensive, detailed and "holistic/inclusion-al" assessment of trees that we will ever achieve.

 

Now, back to the tree assessment!

 

So fruit body at base, another malformed/juvenile at the graft line and our "little gem" of communication, a panic fruit body indicating a need to escape a dying or near failed host. this tells us that this fruit is the biotrophic parasite ganoderma australe=adspersum, because if it had been G. lipsiense=applanantum it would not be panicking, it would thrive on a dead host.

 

there is also some armillaria present, taking advantage of a stress scenario, yes the fungi are coming home to roost, looks like a harmless bit of decay doesnt it? it is in fact as rotten as a pear and about to fail, we know this because of the body language of the fruits.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fungus]

So Ganoderma on a chestnut, already thats an issue, chestnuts are poor at compartmentalising decay, especially Ganodermas, but its still important to deduce the variety, for if G. australe we have a very serious problem and some urgency required.

Ganoderma australe is a biotrophic parasite, meaning it needs life within its host, connection to the living tissues.

Ganoderma lipsiense on the other hand is a necrotrophic parasite, meaning it can and indeed does do very well on the host long after its collpase and or death living as a saprotroph for anything up to a decade on fallen trunks with good healthy annual layers added. True that it does make its biggest growths during the first three years of the death and or collapse of the host, but it carries on a happy lifestyle for many many more years after. Ganoderma australe on the other hand all but dies with the host and this is our greatest asset, for it gives us more often than not a very very important indicator, "panic fruiting" (*).

So fruit body at base, another malformed/juvenile at the graft line and our "little gem" of communication, a panic fruit body indicating a need to escape a dying or near failed host. this tells us that this fruit is the biotrophic parasite ganoderma australe=adspersum, because if it had been G. lipsiense=applanantum it would not be panicking, it would thrive on a dead host (*).

there is also some Armillaria present, taking advantage of a stress scenario, yes the fungi are coming home to roost (**), looks like a harmless bit of decay doesnt it? it is in fact as rotten as a pear and about to fail, we know this because of the body language of the fruits.

 

Tony,

All true and in this case agreed upon, although in doubt and without Agathomyia galls present, one always has to make a 100 % positive identification of the Ganoderma species being either G. australe or G. lipsiense.

So I confine myself to making some remarks to add to the post.

* : G. lipsiense also can panic fruit on a recently died and fallen tree, if its mycelium has decomposed most of the energy rich cellulose of the colonized wood beforehand.

** : with regard to the MTA-concept, one would have mentioned Aesculus being an endomycorrhizae associated tree species with a very poor tree species specific eco- and root defense system, which makes the tree extra vulnerable for parasites (leaf mining insects, perennial biotrophic parasitic bracket fungi such as G. australe, Horse chestnut bleeding canker) and especially for root invading (rhizomorphs of) parasitic Armillaria species reacting to drought and stress by other causes.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony,

All true and in this case agreed upon, although in doubt and without Agathomyia galls present, one always has to make a 100 % positive identification of the Ganoderma species being either G. australe or G. lipsiense.

So I confine myself to making some remarks to add to the post.

* : G. lipsiense also can panic fruit on a recently died and fallen tree, if its mycelium has decomposed most of the energy rich cellulose of the colonized wood beforehand.

** : with regard to the MTA-concept, one would have mentioned Aesculus being an endomycorrhizae associated tree species with a very poor tree species specific eco- and root defense system, which makes the tree extra vulnerable for parasites (leaf mining insects, perennial biotrophic parasitic bracket fungi such as G. australe, Horse chestnut bleeding canker) and especially for root invading (rhizomorphs of) parasitic Armillaria species reacting to drought and stress by other causes.

 

Gerrit, thank you, this must be acknowledged as the result of your teaching:thumbup1:

 

Do you mean galls as in leaf galls?

 

 

 

there were many cankers present, see photos below

[Fungus]

Do you mean galls as in leaf galls?

 

No, the nipple-shaped galls of Agathomyia wankowiczi on the pores and tube layers of G. lipsiense.

[Fungus]

there were many cankers present

 

Which probably are caused by one of the parasitic Nectria species.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

No, the nipple-shaped galls of Agathomyia wankowiczi on the pores and tube layers of G. lipsiense.

 

The thing about the flat foot flies is that they need a continuous habitat, so street trees in the urban context will not (maybe in proximity to a known site) get colonised by the fly. i know only three sites that have good reliability of flat foot fly pressence, and i think it is important to record as many sites as we can as it does help a great deal.

[Fungus]

The thing about the flat foot flies is that they need a continuous habitat, so street trees in the urban context will not (maybe in proximity to a known site) get colonised by the fly.

 

Good point , though in a small country like The Netherlands, urban trees are much closer to woodlands and forests then in the U.K., resulting in that the flat foot fly is quite often found on G. lipsiense in urban environments too.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Fungus