Body language Quercus

[treeseer]

further indication that in north america at least frothy flux is apparently not always a wood decay pathogen phenomenon. here seen on a baby tree: http://www.arboristsite.com/homeowner-helper-forum/177713.htm#post3087436

[Fungus]

1. my objective was managing the trees for the clients. methods valid for that purpose imho. Data very scientific and valid for that limited purpose--i shan't be sending this in for a journal publication. Research and science are not synonymous.

2. Was my work complete in the ecological context, no. Valid, yes indeed.

3. "you said Phytophthora (in general), which includes P. ramorum." ... thank you for the retraction.

4. Teaching may take place, which is very useful, but preaching is best saved for other venues.

5. I'll avoid seizing this ... to preach arboriculture to mycologists and ecologists

 

Guy,

1. That's were we (again) disagree. There was a lack of scientific validity in the methods you used, as the data were gathered from a very limited and not adequately assessed and documented field "research" perspective, which may have been adequate for the tree owner, but does not qualify for being presented as a scientific contribution to the subject.

2. See : Forum Training & Education : Mycological Tree Assessment.

3. I didn't retract, I wrote : "Phytophthora (in general), which includes P. ramorum.

4. Just like a few other senior members of this forum, I have a "mission" to fullfill, so no teaching without preaching.

5. Let me remind you, that it was you, who "invaded" my thread challenging my research on the subject and uploaded an article from 2004, which made me assume, that you wanted your article and claims reviewed from my mycological and forest ecological perspective and by my scientific standards.

 

And concerning your next post on the "baby tree". By what method did you asess the constituents of the "frothy flux" and exclude Phytophtora ramorum (SOD) or Acute Oak Death being responsible for the ooze ?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Fungus

[Fungus]

Documentation of the next phase of wood decay (white rot) by rhizomorphs or plaques and mycelium of Armillaria ostoyae of a still partially living oak, decomposing the tree outside in, which leaves a tree "corpse or carcass" behind, that may remain stable for several years because the heart wood stays unaffected for a long time.

---

Edited August 11, 2011 by Fungus

[David Goss]

wow this is like the clash of the titans or something!

wish i could understand half of what you guys are arguing about:blushing:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

wow this is like the clash of the titans or something!

wish i could understand half of what you guys are arguing about:blushing:

 

i find it best to read, read and then re read, forget about it, then come back when something reminds me of the topic i tried so hard to undertsand and learn, then after the trigger and the fourth attempt at digestion something happens:thumbup:

[David Goss]

i find it best to read, read and then re read, forget about it, then come back when something reminds me of the topic i tried so hard to undertsand and learn, then after the trigger and the fourth attempt at digestion something happens:thumbup:

 

yea but with my memory every time i read it its like the first time

i need some miracle laser etching direct to the brain i think:001_rolleyes:

[treeseer]

Interesting look at the A ostoyae, thanks.

 

1. That's were we (again) disagree. There was a lack of scientific validity in the methods you used, as the data were gathered from a very limited and not adequately assessed and documented field "research" perspective, which may have been adequate for the tree owner, but does not qualify for being presented as a scientific contribution to the subject.

 

Seemed like presenting an experience from another continent might be useful. Analysis of observations is a humble but valid scientific contribution. Nobody is perfect.

 

2. See : Forum Training & Education : Mycological Tree Assessment.

 

I saw it. In the first case study, condemnation seemed hastily done, without adequate consideration of potential tree response to treatments. Pruning can rejuvenate, soil remediation can bring positive effects, etc.

Other case studies and conclusions very interesting, some seem very instructive. Have you considered learning Arboricultural Tree Risk Management?

 

4. Just like a few other senior members of this forum, I have a "mission" to fullfill, so no teaching without preaching.

 

As a member since 2007, I too have a mission--arboriculture--but I'd rather persuade through reason than through preaching. Different strokes for different folks. Preaching seems faith-based, and I prefer fact-based. I'm not thirsty for the fungus kool-aid, until nutritional analysis is made.

 

5. Let me remind you, that it was you, who "invaded" my thread challenging my research on the subject and uploaded an article from 2004, which made me assume, that you wanted your article and claims reviewed from my mycological and forest ecological perspective and by my scientific standards.

 

No invasion or even challenges; I just presented a North American experience. And I did not see a copyright on the thread. I did not ask for it to be reviewed through such a limited perspective, but I respect and consider your views. If in the future I write something with a mycological aspect, I would be glad to forward it to you for review.

 

"And concerning your next post on the "baby tree". By what method did you asess the constituents of the "frothy flux" "

 

Analyzing information: report of smell, sunken black blotches around the lesions, and presence of insects. Looks more bacterial than fungal.

 

"and exclude Phytophtora ramorum (SOD)"

 

Never having smelled or heard reports of skunky beer smell from Phytophthora

 

"or Acute Oak Death being responsible for the ooze ?"

 

Not familiar with AOD in North America, and i hope to never be. Thank you for your frank responses; no sense beating around the bush. Keep them coming!

[Fungus]

1. In the first case study, condemnation seemed hastily done, without adequate consideration of potential tree response to treatments. Pruning can rejuvenate, soil remediation can bring positive effects, etc.

2. Have you considered learning Arboricultural Tree Risk Management?

3. Preaching seems faith-based, and I prefer fact-based.

4. you wanted your article and claims reviewed from my mycological and forest ecological perspective and by my scientific standards. I did not ask for it to be reviewed through such a limited perspective, but I respect and consider your views.

5. If in the future I write something with a mycological aspect, I would be glad to forward it to you for review.

6. Thank you for your frank responses; no sense beating around the bush. Keep them coming!

 

Guy,

1. You obviously (again) have no idea of what the tree species specific ecosystem and soil food web, including ectomycorrhizal macrofungi, and the life cycle of a Fagus sylvatica of this age (in The Netherlands) looks like, as you would otherwise have understood, that nothing was done hastly or without adequate consideration, as the assessment of all aspects present and diagnosed, including the parasitic and root/wood degrading macrofungi and their tree species specific effects, were taken into account and you would not have suggested this senseless pruning or soil remediation as a "treatment" of a tree in its final reproductive phase.

2. No, why should I ? I'm a well trained Visual Tree Assessor and tree consultant, with over fifteen years of field experience monitoring over 15.000 trees, including mycological aspects, working together with and doing (mycological) research for Claus Mattheck, and (still) educating and training hundreds of Dutch and Belgian arborists and tree managers in the meanwhile in the MTA-method integrated VTA-method and in tree (risk) managment myself.

3. I prefer (teaching and) preaching fact-based scientific research.

4. Who's evaluating what "through such a limited perspective" then ?

5. Fat chance, as I'm no longer interested in anything you write.

6. Now you also seem to have short memory impairments. What about "far off the radar", "some offence still taken" or "bully pulprit" and ridiculing my rightful questions by wishing for "world peace" or a "chicken in every pot" ?

No need to react on this post anymore, because I'll leave it at that and from now on stick to not answering to your remarks and questions anymore.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Guy,

 

 

1. Wrong conclusion. As a forest ecologist and mycologist, my focus is on the total tree species specific ecosystem and its soil food web, including relevant parasitic, saprotrophic and symbiotic macrofungi and other organisms, not on the trees, nor on the fungi alone, but on all of the contextual or "holistic" (Gestalt) (eco)system aspects (habitat, niche), without which IMO a complete and valid analysis of the health or condition of a tree can not be made.

 

I agree with you entirely, to exclude the "natural nieghbourhood" is folly:thumbup1:

[Fungus]

Not much body language left after a storm almost completely blew off the crown of this oak, brown rotted at great height by Laetiporus sulphureus. Funny to see how in the cavity Mycena galericulata, which mostly fruits on stumps and wood laying on the forest floor, carries on decomposing the remaining wood with polyaromatic hydrocarbons.

---