Base decay in eucalyptus

[Fungus]

1. the prospective posters and gaining a certain amount of understanding of your respective philosophies. Namely in this case ... Fungus ... I have a great deal of respect for the comments placed upon this forum by you and of insights that come from people that are truly attuned to natural observations. It is for this that I wanted to make mention of ideals that I feel are incongruent and are not inherently "ecological" in that they are focused on a particular bent and a particular organism that you seem to share a passion. The observations that you have recorded and in the case of Gerrit, studied rigourously, only point to a single factor of the health of Gaia. Gerrit has mentioned links to the Soil Food Web of which the Director and founder is Dr Elaine Ingham. I point this out because the holistic concepts of true plant health come from a balanced and diverse set of organisms. Dr Ingham shows us that in a microbiological world, where one organism has the upper hand, then balance, diversity and health is lacking!

2. The circumstances that allow for control of a host species in an environment whereby age should not be a mitigating factor suggests balance has been unfairly tipped. In the case of forest vegetation, circumstances such as many of your threads suggest, should and do happen because breakdown has lead to a circumstance whereby conditions are such that certain organisms can benefit and utilize, weak, veteran, and poorly conditioned tissue. To delight in this behaviour on trees within the urban environment is putting the cart a little before the horse as the conditions that have created these "habitats" for fungal bloom is almost certainly a condition of the human sickness.

3. Dr Ingham once explained to me that it should be a fairly rare thing to see a FB because it suggests all the other organisms that should be there to keep it in check aren't doing their jobs (or aren't there).

 

1. I wonder whether you read all my posts on forest ecology, the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems, tree species specific life cycles and soil food webs, including mycorrhizal fungi, on this forum, because otherwise I can't understand how you could have come to the conclusion, that my philosophies, ideas or "ideals" are "incongruent and not inherently "ecological" in that they are focussed on a particular bent and a particular organism" and that "The observations that you have recorded only point to a single factor of the health of Gaia."

Although I'm well aware of the complexity of the soil food web, I completely disagree on the "submissive" role you claim the macro- and micro fungi to play.

If the fungal participants in the soil food webs and tree species specific ecosystems would not have the upper hand or would not be in control, the ecosystem and its soil food web would be totally out of balance and their would be no diversity or health of other organisms at all.

Parasitic (macro)fungi are the regulators and process accelerators of tree species specific ecosystems in eliminating trees becoming parasites of their own tree species specific ecosystem, because they - because of health problems or old age - changed the balance from being a 60 % provider ("sugar daddy") of energy to all other organisms involved, to less then 40 %, which process would end in total loss of the ecosystem if the parasitism of the tree on the ecosystem was not stopped (in time). And there are even macrofungi, such as Pleurotus ostreatus, Hohenbuehelia species and anamorphs of Orbilia species, of which the mycelia form special sticky buds of lasso's to catch and devour parasitic nematodes with.

Saprotrophic (macro)fungi are the recylers of all organic material coming from trees, including the lignin, which can not be decomposed by other organisms, and with this keep the food or energy chain of the ecosystem intact.

And last but not least, the (ecto)mycorrhizal (macro)fungi are the providers, go betweens or intermediaries and defenders of the trees in protecting (antibiotics, fungicides) the roots they colonize, enlarging the root system with a factor 1.000 to 2.000 with their mycelia, with which they transport and deliver water and nutrients or minerals (phosphor) to the trees and uptake and store toxics, such as heavy metals and salt, in parts of the mycelium, which are then disconnected from the root system of the tree. Recent research has shown, that trees share the most carbohydrates with ectomycorrhizal macrofungi delivering the most phosphor needed for reproduction (DNA) of the tree, and the ectomycorrhizal symbionts "feed" the most nutrients, including phosphor, to trees giving the most carbohydrates in return.

2. That's why I emphasize the importance of "copying" as much of the tree species specific ecosystem possible in the living environment of urban trees, and stress, that one has to return to the natural forests of tree species specific ecosystems and their habitats and niches, to understand the problems our "managed" forests and urban trees experience, because of the far from complete ecosystems they have to live by and with in our well paved and water and air polluted towns and cities.

3. Really ? So the above (and underground : truffles) fruiting and reproduction of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi is a sign, that all the other organisms, which are part of the tree species specific ecosystem and soil food web, aren't doing their jobs very well (or aren't there) ?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

1. I wonder whether you read all my posts on forest ecology, the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems, tree species specific life cycles and soil food webs, including mycorrhizal fungi, on this forum, because otherwise I can't understand how you could have come to the conclusion, that my philosophies, ideas or "ideals" are "incongruent and not inherently "ecological" in that they are focussed on a particular bent and a particular organism" and that "The observations that you have recorded only point to a single factor of the health of Gaia."

Although I'm well aware of the complexity of the soil food web, I completely disagree on the "submissive" role you claim the macro- and micro fungi to play.

If the fungal participants in the soil food webs and tree species specific ecosystems would not have the upper hand or would not be in control, the ecosystem and its soil food web would be totally out of balance and their would be no diversity or health of other organisms at all.

Parasitic (macro)fungi are the regulators and process accelerators of tree species specific ecosystems in eliminating trees becoming parasites of their own tree species specific ecosystem, because they - because of health problems or old age - changed the balance from being a 60 % provider ("sugar daddy") of energy to all other organisms involved, to less then 40 %, which process would end in total loss of the ecosystem if the parasitism of the tree on the ecosystem was not stopped (in time). And there are even macrofungi, such as Pleurotus ostreatus, Hohenbuehelia species and anamorphs of Orbilia species, of which the mycelia form special sticky buds of lasso's to catch and devour parasitic nematodes with.

Saprotrophic (macro)fungi are the recylers of all organic material coming from trees, including the lignin, which can not be decomposed by other organisms, and with this keep the food or energy chain of the ecosystem intact.

And last but not least, the (ecto)mycorrhizal (macro)fungi are the providers, go betweens or intermediaries and defenders of the trees in protecting (antibiotics, fungicides) the roots they colonize, enlarging the root system with a factor 1.000 to 2.000 with their mycelia, with which they transport and deliver water and nutrients or minerals (phosphor) to the trees and uptake and store toxics, such as heavy metals and salt, in parts of the mycelium, which are then disconnected from the root system of the tree. Recent research has shown, that trees share the most carbohydrates with ectomycorrhizal macrofungi delivering the most phosphor needed for reproduction (DNA) of the tree, and the ectomycorrhizal symbionts "feed" the most nutrients, including phosphor, to trees giving the most carbohydrates in return.

2. That's why I emphasize the importance of "copying" as much of the tree species specific ecosystem possible in the living environment of urban trees, and stress, that one has to return to the natural forests of tree species specific ecosystems and their habitats and niches, to understand the problems our "managed" forests and urban trees experience, because of the far from complete ecosystems they have to live by and with in our well paved and water and air polluted towns and cities.

3. Really ? So the above (and underground : truffles) fruiting and reproduction of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi is a sign, that all the other organisms, which are part of the tree species specific ecosystem and soil food web, aren't doing their jobs very well (or aren't there) ?

 

Poor old arbor logic, first post and SLAM:lol:

 

classic

 

but on a serious note fruit bodies rare? give me a break, as for ecology being distinctly lacking in "our bents" seriously, fungi are the life blood of eco systems.

[Arbor Logic]

Hi Gerrit, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things as I am sure my ability to convey through typing is limited.

I do not believe that fungus play a submissive role! And in the case of higher succesional trees it is a ratio of somethin akin to 70:30 Fungal to bacterial dominance. They are an extremely important part of the health of a tree.

What I was pointing out was that all are players and plant health practitioners need to have a better grasp of the interaction of all the biomass in the soil to understand.

Many people are not aware that the most concentrate form of non-leachable N in the soil is bacteria with a C:N ration of 5:1 followed closely by Fungus with an average of 15:1. However it is the protozoa and nematodes that by consuming these two guys in their daily chomping, release plant available nutrients due to their incompatabilty of their respective C:N ratios. With a shortage or a distinct rational change in the predators, plant available nutrients can be lacking for the plant even though present in the soil.

I am also pointing out that trees are distinctly aerobic as are all of the beneficial microbes that form the disease suppression of the tree (Not just fungus). The type of disease supression and biology that is in the rhizosphere is controlled by the release of exudates from the tree in certain recipes at different times of the year depending on seasonal predators. These photosynthates are again not just for the fungus.

I am not saying this as a means of education as I am certain you are aware of these things. It is merely to highlight the complexity of the soilfoodweb and hopefully have people asking similar questions to you and others who have that sort of knowledge about the other components and why they are so vital to plant health.

Please understand I am in no way being contentious or contradictory to any of your statements, I agree with them all...just saying they are not the only thing that makes it spin and arborists need to understand that too.

[Fungus]

1. trees are distinctly aerobic as are all of the beneficial microbes that form the disease suppression of the tree (Not just fungus).

2. The type of disease supression and biology that is in the rhizosphere is controlled by the release of exudates from the tree in certain recipes at different times of the year depending on seasonal predators. These photosynthates are again not just for the fungus.

 

1. The mycelia of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi are far more aerobic then tree roots are, they need about 20 % more oxygen to grow and thrive. There's just one exception to this rule, formed by the ectomycorrhizal pioneer Alnicola (= Naucoria) species, of which the hyphae can grow under anaerobic circumstances, because they get their oxygen delivered "from within" by the roots of the tree they colonize itself. Alnicola species mainly specialize on Alnus species, but some also colonize Betula and Salix species, tree species, which partially can form roots under extreme wet soil conditions or even below water level.

2. The supressive exudates you mention are not primary photosynthates, but secundary assimilates produced in cooperation and contact with mycorrhizal fungi in the "chemical factory" in the base of the trunk of the tree, from where they are not only transported to the rhizosphere, but also to the above ground parts of the tree, including the leaves to protect them against gluttonous insects or leave moulds and the living tissues of the trunk and branches to protect them against attacks by parasitic fungi invading wounds.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Fungus

[Arbor Logic]

1. The mycelia of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi are far more aerobic then tree roots are, they need about 20 % more oxygen to grow and thrive. There's just one exception to this rule, formed by the ectomycorrhizal pioneer Alnicola (= Naucoria) species, of which the hyphae can grow under anaerobic circumstances, because they get their oxygen delivered "from within" by the roots of the tree they colonize itself. Alnicola species mainly specialize on Alnus species, but some also colonize Betula and Salix species, tree species, which partially can form roots under extreme wet soil conditions or even below water level.

2. The supressive exudates you mention are not primary photosynthates, but secundary assimilates produced in cooperation and contact with mycorrhizal fungi in the "chemical factory" in the base of the trunk of the tree, from where they are not only transported to the rhizosphere, but also to the above ground parts of the tree, including the leaves to protect them against gluttonous insects or leave moulds and the living tissues of the trunk and branches to protect them against attacks by parasitic fungi invading wounds.

 

1. I see no dispute

 

2. 80% of the photosynthates that are made by higher succesional plants are taken to the roots and upwards of 50% of those are poured into the soil (and foliage). That assimilates are manufactured with the co-operation of Mycorrhizae is new but not surprising although I doubt it is ALL of the food ( I will get back to you on that) as it was my understanding that the mutualism was based on tit for tat i.e you get me iron, pottasium, magnesium etc and in exchange I will give you complex sugars and carbohydrates.

 

Bearing in mind this relationship is only this way for the higher succesional plants as the lower in succession you move, the less this is the case. To the point were truly lower plant species give virtually no exudates and decide to utilize all energy on seed production and Mycorrhizae are positively toxic.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

1. I see no dispute

 

2. 80% of the photosynthates that are made by higher succesional plants are taken to the roots and upwards of 50% of those are poured into the soil (and foliage). That assimilates are manufactured with the co-operation of Mycorrhizae is new but not surprising although I doubt it is ALL of the food ( I will get back to you on that) as it was my understanding that the mutualism was based on tit for tat i.e you get me iron, pottasium, magnesium etc and in exchange I will give you complex sugars and carbohydrates.

 

Bearing in mind this relationship is only this way for the higher succesional plants as the lower in succession you move, the less this is the case. To the point were truly lower plant species give virtually no exudates and decide to utilize all energy on seed production and Mycorrhizae are positively toxic.

 

toxic huh.

[Fungus]

1. I see no dispute

2. 80% of the photosynthates that are made by higher succesional plants are taken to the roots and upwards of 50% of those are poured into the soil (and foliage). That assimilates are manufactured with the co-operation of Mycorrhizae is new but not surprising although I doubt it is ALL of the food ( I will get back to you on that) as it was my understanding that the mutualism was based on tit for tat i.e you get me iron, pottasium, magnesium etc and in exchange I will give you complex sugars and carbohydrates.

3. Bearing in mind this relationship is only this way for the higher succesional plants as the lower in succession you move, the less this is the case. To the point were truly lower plant species give virtually no exudates and decide to utilize all energy on seed production and Mycorrhizae are positively toxic.

 

1. Neither do I, I was merely adding information, but to elaborate a bit more on the subject, it's because mycelia of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi need 20 % more oxygen then tree roots do, they are the first "victims" of compaction, long lasting drought or drawning because of permanent high water table levels. Once they die, the soil food web is out of balance and because the tree roots go unprotected, ever present root parasites, such as Meripilus giganteus, (rhizomorphs of) parasitic Armillaria species (this year after last years drought frequently present), or Pholiota squarrosa, get a chance to attack the root system of the tree and to "rise up" in the living tissues of the trunk.

2. Here I also see no dispute, although I prefer using the term balanced parasitism over mutualism or symbioses. And with co-operation, I meant that the mycelia of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi are the transporters and suppliers of basic minerals and spore elements, the "chemical factory" in the trunk base, together with the photosynthates, turns into or "rebuilds" as assimilates, hormones and DNA to defend the tree with and to grow and reproduce itself.

3. How can (endo)mycorrhizae be positively toxic to "lower" green plants, as over 90 % of them needs to bond with endomycorrhizal microfungi to enlarge their root system and provide them with water and nutrients needed for growth and reproduction ? In this respect, bare in mind, that endomycorrhizal microfungi only use a very low percentage of the carbohydrates and sugars produced by the plants to grow (hyphae) and reproduce by direct (a-sexual) forming of spores on minimal reproductive structures on the hyphae connected to the roots, so both plants and microfungi don't have to invest in energy consuming above ground FB's as is the case with ectomycorrhizal macrofungi and the trees they associate with.

A good example of an almost complete take over by a species specific mycorrhizal fungus is found in Ericaceae, where instead of cellulose and lignin, the chitin rich hyphae of the fungus for up to 70 % make up the material of the above and underground woody structures of the plant.

[Arbor Logic]

Specifically I was referring to Brassicaceae, however there are many others. Also many Australian trees are NM including the family Proteaceae which includes Grevillea, Hakea, Banksia etc. These plants develop cluster roots and are highly resistant to Mycorrhizal association.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Specifically I was referring to Brassicaceae, however there are many others. Also many Australian trees are NM including the family Proteaceae which includes Grevillea, Hakea, Banksia etc. These plants develop cluster roots and are highly resistant to Mycorrhizal association.

 

yeah but we all know australias full of oddities!

[shillo]

blimey my head spinning!

 

i took down a big euc with exactly the same problem but much worse, it was full of low tight forks which were riddled with the same decay i too blamed it on honey fungus and did find plenty of bootlaces under the dead bark. i was a little embarrassed after we took it down as the stem looked as clean as a whistle except for this rot which only really extended about 10 - 20mm in to the tree