Bleeding canker English walnut

[treeseer]

I'm still trying to get on the same page here, or at least in the same library:

 

Fungus 1. I already reacted on this poorly documented "research", of which the suggested outcomes have not been aknowledged, nor confirmed by the international mycological society.

 

I thought that was a different study; my apologies; chastisement accepted. This still begs the question of other means of defense or adaptability, besides an ectomycorrhizal sheath. Are all species that lack ectos doomed to die?

 

2. ...through interference of forest "managers" - elswhere in the progression", but not as "adolescent", half grown or old trees by themselves

 

Well all I know is that I commonly see Pisolithus-type puffball fungi in landscapes where management has been quite passive-- no interference that is evident, in recent history. How they got there I cannot say, but I have observed those spores swirling in the breeze, so I take that as a clue that they are indeed doing it on their own.

 

The trees are not ambulatory Ents--the phenomenon of layering being the exception to that rule--but those spores do appear to be highly motile.

 

"And why is a species with FB's with such distinct and easy recognizable features as P. arhizus listed as very rare and only associated with highly acid soils all over Europe ?"

 

Perhaps because it is. But what has that to do with Ben's field? Maybe that fungus is better adapted to more acid soils, like those of the SE US, so other, perhaps native, symbionts could be introduced.

Would that be acceptable application of mycological understanding?

 

3. Apart from "turfgrass", grass is part of all natural ecosystems and food chains,"

 

If this is true, how are there many square miles of forested ecosystems with continuous canopies and no expanses of grass? I've hiked for many hours without seeing more than tufts here and there. Don't forests still exist in europe?

 

" without grasses none of the "grazing" animals could survive and all predators of these animals would die,"

 

As I understand natural history, humans have wiped out the big cats in most ecosystems. Unless the predators you speak of are the harvesters of hamburger, homo sapiens not-so-sapiens, you and I have been doing a dandy job of "disrupting the entire food chain and turning our world into chaos." So to return to the original post if we may, what would be wrong with replacing some of the grass in Ben's field with woody associates? Nothing at all, right?

 

"And tree species such as Castanea and Acer associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi, already have developed strategies to keep grasses highly competitive for endomycorrhizae off their tree species specific ecosystem territories."

 

Yes grasses and trees can coexist, I agree. But where trees are desired, they need a little room to get going, that's all I'm saying.

 

"Not as long as we keep uprooting trees grown under artificial conditions in "nurseries" and replant them with damaged roots and mycorrhizae in hostile environments."

 

Well you're preaching to the altarboy now, deacon. Let's hope Ben can find good stock, and make the environment less hostile by "fixing" it, as Tony says, by proper site preparation. this might include replacing some of the grass with native woody and herbaceous species.

 

"Your view on "managing" trees and forests seems to be more associated with short term focussed "gardening" of "nature" by and with all means and at high as possible speed"

 

Oh no, not another lecture on how we should all sit on one little piece of the puzzle...I'm not hasty; I'm still waiting for ideas rather than more of this global criticism of human endeavour.

 

"then with arboriculture based on knowledge of the dynamics of natural tree species specific ecosystems, their soil food webs, including mycorrhizae,"

 

O I am with you so far, Gerrit. I read the 1999 Soil Biology Primer early on. I honor and respect microbes in the soil. Good arboriculture provides the conditions for these dynamics to flourish. Ensure adequate organic matter and oxygen and moisture levels, encourage biodiversity above and below ground, okay, that's all good stuff.

 

"and the tree species specific life cycles"

 

Let's try to stay on track here, with the original post, Ben's field (sorry to keep you on the spot here, Ben). We have already addressed the topic of subterranean life cycles with the observations of spores floating about. Tree roots associate with myriad organisms. These life cycles that you speak of, I'll take your word for it that they take place underground as you say, but what is not clear is the suggestion that if these specific cycles do not occur in a specific pattern then all hell breaks loose. That does not fit my observations or understanding of tree growth.

 

5. You could start with reacting to my earlier post by answering my before asked questions and make that a consistent aspect of your "psychology"

 

Ohhh THAT post. My apologies: I totally missed that, having gotten sidetracked by the sociological lecture on how we should all act more like bugs. I agree that we *all* should not skip relevant inquiries, if we are to retain any credibility here. Let's take a look:

 

Guy,

1. I attended Marx's Dutch seminar on reforestation of coniferous trees on mining rubble with the "help" of Treesaver ®, a very expensive commercial product, of which he refused to "give away" the constituents, which I later "unveiled" publically in a series of articles (in Dutch) on the subject."

 

Okay, the ingredients are on the bags now, last I looked, which has been a while.

 

"In the discussion afterwards he had to admit, that there was no evidence of his product being effective in soils with a pH 3 or higher and/or with other tree species then the species he planted in his field experiment as a result of the spores and hyphae of endo- and ectomycorrhizal fungi he included in the mixture."

 

yes the study i saw in Pathology class reflected those limits. the school is all about Pinus taeda, which limits the institution's effectiveness in my eyes. but they chase the dollar, like everyone seemingly must, to some extent.

 

"For the ingredients of Treesaver and research on its ineffectiveness on the long run, see Mycorrhiza."

 

I'll skip that thread with your permission, out of the interests of time, and because I ceased using it years ago anyway.

 

"And yes, Pisolithus arhizus (= P. tinctorius) also grows in landscapes, but as I said before, (in The Netherlands) very rare, i.e. seldom fruiting and only associating as a pioneer successor with seedlings and young trees of indigenous Betula and Pinus species (see my Dutch website) growing in/on mining rubble hills with a pH 1-2."

 

Well i do not doubt your observations of your homeland, and I beg you to return that curiosity. What looks exactly like P arhizus/tinctorius pops up all over in the piedmont of SE USA, pH 3-6. In lawns, in woodchip mulch; the picture I took was by my pond where forest met mowed area. I don't visit sites with mining rubble much; could be there too. not much mining really.

 

"So how did you determine that P. arhizus actually colonized the roots of older white oaks and that the mycelia in the rotten wood chips belonged to this ectomycorrhizal Gasteromycete and not to one or several of many other possibly present saprotrophic species decomposing and mulching the "raw" material, of which the oaks benefited by mediation of other ectomycorrhizal macrofungi (already) present in the soil ?"

 

That is an excellent question. I saw white and yellow/sulfur strands running through the rotting woodchips. They seemed to originate from the chips themselves, aboveground, but i CONFESS THOSE SKINNY LITTLE BUGGERS ARE HARD TO TRACE, AND i WOULD NOT SWEAR TO A PRECISE AND INFALLIBLE DETERMINATION. darn capslock. of their origin.

 

I have seen similar strands--which resemble pictures of P t/a strands-- in leaf litter that also showed no connection whatever to the earth, if that helps here. The point is, I use naturally occurring native fungus and apply it to the same species, nearby. No matter what species grew into the organic matter, the point is, it GREW there, with no further manipulation. I don't see a problem with that, do you? This talk is not about foreign products anymore; that was ~7 years ago.

 

2. As thousands of (reviews of) field experiments have shown, short turn positive results have no predictive value for long term results and are almost always followed by detrimental results for the tree on the long run"

 

Let's look at what you said there--"...short term positive results...are almost always followed by detrimental results..." Are you leaving out a phrase about foreign products, or speaking more generally, of natural fluctuations? I'm confused. I'm used to seeing studies with a 3-year window, which has hampered my understanding. But I know that the treated white oak is not showing any detrimental results from my naive manipulation with TreeSaver/native compost application. I'll keep my eye on it, and report decline if seen, and we'll diagnose it at that time, okay? It's in a moss lawn, which indicates acidity, I believe.

[treeseer]

Part 2:

 

 

 

Fungus: "...which mostly is the outcome of our interfering with natural succession within tree species specific ecosystems and soil food webs, we are only beginning to understand."

 

Well this conclusion seems highly speculative, and misanthropic. It seems based on a peculiar view that humans are pathetic meddlers, when viewed through clear lens of the microscope of mycology. I've also gone through some more of the Ingham Soifoodweb Bible with its studies of arid grassland/agricultural ecology. It may be my abysmal ignorance, but i cannot connect all of the conclusions about these relationships and successions and processes based on those studies, with what I see happening in the rootzones of trees.

 

Could there be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology? Could there NOT be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology?

 

Your earlier statements about the ubiquity of grasslands and the ecological importance of extinct predators of grazing creatures seem to indicate a pastoral or parochial view of certain landscapes in your part of the world that may not apply universally. I've seen trees do quite well for decades in lawns and natural areas under the type of human interference that is being decried. Others are not doing well, which is why enabling natural processes by mulching and planting natural associates, and not dosing willy-nilly with fertilizer and irrigation, is being encouraged.

 

What else would you generally recommend to manage these rootzones, for those who lack the resources or the credulity to do full-blown inventories of nematodes and biocides? i am not averse to further investigation. I am looking for more tools to add to my current kit of a pH meter and my hands, eyes, nose, and the $15 test that gives me macros, CEC, and a recommendation to add N.

 

I do not see enough proof of their value to either sell my clients on spending $100's on tests, or apply the results. As you and your choir keep singing, we know very little about the landscape below ground. I agree, but I do not think it presumptuous to try to improve it by mimicking nature. How do we know how much more we need to know, before we should act?

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

 

1) Could there be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology? Could there NOT be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology?

 

2) As you and your choir keep singing, we know very little about the landscape below ground. I agree, but I do not think it presumptuous to try to improve it by mimicking nature.

 

3) How do we know how much more we need to know, before we should act?

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

1) Of course there are fundemental differences.

 

2) 2a -highlighted) Its cocksure little digs like that that put everyones back up, want a serious debate lets *all* pack that in, ESPECIALY you:lol:

2b unenlightened portion) nature does and always has and will do a far superior job than you I or Gerrit will ever achieve. Nature is magic, we can try to understand it, we can try to quantify it, we can asign labels and put things in ticky boxes, but nature just dont roll that way, everytime we try to play her at her own game she gets jiggy with it just to show us the nature of our ordasity.

 

Holistic/natural methods are what we have UNTIL we know far more than we do now, or we risk wreaking havoc.

 

3) how should we know when to act? this depends, as it is never 100% clear where you are talking about acting, are we talking managed forest stands, urbanised isolated street trees or natural ancient woodlands? in grass, in forest habitats or in concrete? etc etc etc

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

As for MY credibility, i never had any to start with, so what do i care!

[Fungus]

1. all I know is that I commonly see Pisolithus-type puffball fungi in landscapes where management has been quite passive-- no interference that is evident, in recent history. What looks exactly like P. arhizus/tinctorius pops up all over in the piedmont of SE USA, pH 3-6. In lawns, in woodchip mulch; the picture I took was by my pond where forest met mowed area.

"So how did you determine that P. arhizus actually colonized the roots of older white oaks and that the mycelia in the rotten wood chips belonged to this ectomycorrhizal Gasteromycete and not to one or several of many other possibly present saprotrophic species decomposing and mulching the "raw" material, of which the oaks benefited by mediation of other ectomycorrhizal macrofungi (already) present in the soil ?"

That is an excellent question. I saw white and yellow/sulfur strands running through the rotting woodchips. They seemed to originate from the chips themselves, aboveground, but i CONFESS THOSE SKINNY LITTLE BUGGERS ARE HARD TO TRACE, AND i WOULD NOT SWEAR TO A PRECISE AND INFALLIBLE DETERMINATION of their origin. I have seen similar strands--which resemble pictures of P t/a strands-- in leaf litter that also showed no connection whatever to the earth. The point is, I use naturally occurring native fungus and apply it to the same species, nearby. No matter what species grew into the organic matter, the point is, it GREW there, with no further manipulation.

2. "As thousands of (reviews of) field experiments have shown, short turn positive results have no predictive value for long term results and are almost always followed by detrimental results for the tree on the long run."

I'm used to seeing studies with a 3-year window, which has hampered my understanding. But I know that the treated white oak is not showing any detrimental results from my naive manipulation with TreeSaver/native compost application.

 

1. Without valid evidence, you claim P. arhizus, one of the very few ectomycorrhizal Gasteromycetes, to be the active "agent", while just as well or even more probable plenty of saprotrophic macrofungi can be responsible for preparing the woodchips and the soil for the tree roots colonized by other mycorrhizal symbionts to grow, so it does matter what species grew into the organic matter and on lawns if your claims are to be taken serious.

And how could the ectomycorrhizal P. arhizus be "helping" trees associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi, i.e. with the majority of all tree species ?

2. Again, read Mycorrhiza.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Fungus

[Fungus]

1. the Ingham soilfoodweb Bible with its studies of arid grassland/agricultural ecology. i cannot connect all of the conclusions about these relationships and successions and processes based on those studies, with what I see happening in the rootzones of trees.

2. Could there be a fundamental difference between grassland ecology and forest ecology?

3. a pastoral or parochial view of certain landscapes in your part of the world that may not apply universally.

4. I've seen trees do quite well for decades in lawns and natural areas. Others are not doing well.

5. we know very little about the landscape below ground. I agree, but I do not think it presumptuous to try to improve it by mimicking nature.

 

1. Neither can I, as those studies are for the greater part confined to (commercially) managed grasslands and agricultural (crop) fields.

But tell me, what do you see happening in the rootzones of trees then without proper knowledge of the soil food webs of tree species specific ecosystems, including the "messages" sent by mostly above ground and in succession fruiting ectomycorrhizal symbionts, and forest ecology in general ?

2. Of course there is, that's why I am not a grassland ecologist and mycologist as some of my Dutch collegues are, but a forest ecologist and mycologist.

3. I know, that's why I confine my work and research to indigenous European tree species specific ecosytems, which already is a hell of a job to keep up to date with.

4. Did you assess and monitor the differences between tree species associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi and with ectomycorrhizal macrofungi and if so, what were your findings and conclusions ?

5. As I said countless times before, mimicking nature can not be done effectively without basic knowledge of the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems and their soil food webs, including the tree's mycorrhizal partners.

[Fungus]

1. If this is true, how are there many square miles of forested ecosystems with continuous canopies and no expanses of grass? I've hiked for many hours without seeing more than tufts here and there. Don't forests still exist in europe?

2. grasses and trees can coexist. But where trees are desired, they need a little room to get going

 

1. Because in Europe, we meanwhile have lost most of our natural beech and other forests with fully closed or continuous canapies and other types of forests have so much open space, that grasses and other nitrification liking plants thrive and expand because of continuous ammonia deposition.

And for your information, the Gramineae are one of the plant species with the most species in the world, of which many species are forest related.

2. In their natural European habitats, trees such as Castanea, Acer, Fagus, Abies and Picea can create forest floor space without grasses themselves.

[Fungus]

a grassland ecologist and mycologist as some Dutch collegues are

 

Speaking of which, German mycologists recently found evidence, that apart from Hygrophorus species, which are ectomycorrhizal macrofungi associating with trees, at least some Hygrocybe species, like the Parrot Waxcap (Hygrocybe psittacina), form special types of mycorrhizae with the roots of plants dominating poor and/or calcareous grasslands, which in this case (photo) might be a Hieracium species.

---

[Fungus]

" without grasses none of the "grazing" animals could survive and all predators of these animals would die,"

As I understand natural history, humans have wiped out the big cats in most ecosystems. Unless the predators you speak of are the harvesters of hamburger, homo sapiens not-so-sapiens, you and I have been doing a dandy job of "disrupting the entire food chain and turning our world into chaos."

 

So you know of no other species, apart from cows, of the world wide fauna (mammals, birds, insects, bacteria, etc.) or fauna (interdependend co-existing plants, micro- and macrofungi) inhabiting and "walking and grazing" this earth totally or partially depending on grass and their seeds for food and reproduction ?