Grifola frondosa assessment with a thermo twist!

[Fungus]

this oak first drew my attention because of its high fruiting (possibly aborted) of inonotus dryadeus, whilst I was getting ready for a free climb andy noticed something at the same time i did further round. Grifola frondosa, as we cleared the bracken we found grifola clumps almost completley gridling the oaks root system at equal distances from root crown.

The first thing that struck me was the immense size of the fronds of one of the clumps, and the gradualy dwindling and poor form of the clumps as we followed them around the stem.

It dawned on me that maybe the inonotus was high due to the root crown having been "claimed" by the Grifola frondosa, forcing inonotus into a high residence!

Now, i was looking at the root compensation, i had long suspected of this fungi as an expression in body language, a widening and low profile of the buttress and roots. I was just thinking argh yes theres the adaption when Andy pointed out how the decay was showing up on the thermo imaging camera. So what became apparent and was like a eureka moment for me was that these grifolas where poor and plentyfull because they where PANIC fruiting! the thermo image reveals that the root compensation is from an earlier time when the tree was in better health in wealthier times, now however the root system is almost completely decayed away and only a few channels of vascular connection to the soil remain, probably advantageous/reiterative roots from the horseshoe shaped remains of the roots.

We confirmed it by finding the fruiting point of one of the brackets, directly through the upper bark of a major surface root.

We talked about options, and it was clear that a very much lower crown frame work existed that was very green and viable, and i am certain the upper crown is not being supported and in effect shutting down while the remaining reiterative roots supply the lower canopy in preparation for the loss of its upper crown. The other scenario is it will blow down at the root crown soil contact!

also maybe this another extreme case of two benign fungi wreaking havoc in the fight for territory? does the combination complicate the strategies?

 

Tony,

Compliments on the great documentation .

To add some info on G. frondosa, until recently it was considered to be a biotrophic parasitic annual bracket fungus, that only decomposed the major roots and buttresses without undermining the central heart wood at and underneath groundlevel of the trunk base, because it was thought the mycelium just invaded the trunk base superficially to "travel" around the base to reach the buttress of a new root.

In The Netherlands, it is most feared for its short term detrimental effects on Q. rubra (danger of windthrow).

After discovery of the canker (tumor) development inhibiting grifolan, Dutch researchres tried to make the mycelium fruit from dead oakwood in a laboratory situation, which initially failed. The Chinese have meanwhile succeeded in developing a method with which it can be mass produced from dead wood.

So the question now would be, is G. frondosa a biotrophic or necrotrophic parasite and how much damage does it do to the central heartwood of the trunk's base.

As the thermo images only show superficial activity at the trunk base, a "look" at the inside would also be needed to further assess the decomposition of wood by the mycelium of G. frondosa to produce this prolific (panic) fruiting from, and/or whether the suggested competition with I. dryadeus is (co-)responsible for the panic fruiting (too).

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony,

Compliments on the great documentation .

To add some info on G. frondosa, until recently it was considered to be a biotrophic parasitic annual bracket fungus, that only decomposed the major roots and buttresses without undermining the central heart wood at and underneath groundlevel of the trunk base, because it was thought the mycelium just invaded the trunk base superficially to "travel" around the base to reach the buttress of a new root.

In The Netherlands, it is most feared for its short term detrimental effects on Q. rubra (danger of windthrow).

After discovery of the canker (tumor) development inhibiting grifolan, Dutch researchres tried to make the mycelium fruit from dead oakwood in a laboratory situation, which initially failed. The Chinese have meanwhile succeeded in developing a method with which it can be mass produced from dead wood.

So the question now would be, is G. frondosa a biotrophic or necrotrophic parasite and how much damage does it do to the central heartwood of the trunk's base.

As the thermo images only show superficial activity at the trunk base, a "look" at the inside would also be needed to further assess the decomposition of wood by the mycelium of G. frondosa to produce this prolific (panic) fruiting from, and/or whether the suggested competition with I. dryadeus is (co-)responsible for the panic fruiting (too).

 

 

it was exactly that question i was asking myself, me an Andrew talked at length about it.

 

I am of the view it IS a biotrophic parasite, i dont think it is a strong parasite, i think it has done for the Oak here because of a lack of vitality. neither the I. dryadeus or grifola frondosa are in my limited view particular threats to oaks. Next month maybe i will return and have a little bit of an investigation.

 

Stamets book growing gourmet and medicinal fungi offers a fair amount of insight into this fungis life, noted is the difficulty in gaining a strain that will make a viable commercial crop. A trait of biotrophic parasites me thinks, whereas saprobic fungi would naturaly fruit without problems on sawdust media etc

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I must substitute the word parasite for "biotrophic organism" Alan would slap my wrists!

[Fungus]

1. I dont think it is a strong parasite, i think it has done for the Oak here because of a lack of vitality. neither the I. dryadeus or grifola frondosa are in my limited view particular threats to oaks.

2. the difficulty in gaining a strain that will make a viable commercial crop. A trait of biotrophic parasites

 

1. Only true for Q. robur (and Q. petrea), not for Q. rubra, on/in which' roots and buttresses G. frondosa can do its detrimental job without competition of I. dryadeus and/or F. hepatica.

2. .

[David Humphries]

Gerrit,

 

do you know when Q. rubra was introduced to the Netherlands & surrounding countries?

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

1. Only true for Q. robur (and Q. petrea), not for Q. rubra, on/in which' roots and buttresses G. frondosa can do its detrimental job without competition of I. dryadeus and/or F. hepatica.

2. .

 

yes it is always all too easy to take for granted the very profound differences between Quercus Spp. Robur/Petrea, are very different, but then here in Europe they are within their natural domain and associated living amoung their tree species specific macrofungi communities. a point we all need to understand when trying to understand why a community of trees are not performing well, or following known and established life cycles.

[BatiArb]

After discovery of the canker (tumor) development inhibiting grifolan, Dutch researchres tried to make the mycelium fruit from dead oakwood in a laboratory situation, which initially failed. The Chinese have meanwhile succeeded in developing a method with which it can be mass produced from dead wood.

So the question now would be, is G. frondosa a biotrophic or necrotrophic parasite and how much damage does it do to the central heartwood of the trunk's base.

 

Gerrit,

 

I find the distinction between Biotrophic and Nectrotrophic modes of decay of interest, although I find it difficult to jump to the conclusion that such are a simple variation to parasitism.

 

I wonder what biological and/or environmental factors are influencing the decay organisms to limit their successful growth within the tree. I imagine it to be a combination of available energy resources, water, oxygen, pH and temperature having an impact on the growing environment of the fungus.

 

How much research has been done to define these different decay strategies and the extent to which they could be called parasitic?

 

I am personally reluctant to label decay fungi as saprophytic, parasitic and/or symbiotic, because in truth I think that all modes, of association with their host, exist at different times during their lives together.

 

It is also my opinion that the extent of decay within the host tree is influenced more by the healthy function of the tree than the perceived 'aggressiveness' of the associated fungi whether as individuals or in combination. In effect the health of the host tree and its ability to sustain water saturated cells is the key factor that restricts the growth of any decay organism inside its woody tissue.

 

I truly believe that the biggest threat to trees is drought stress, which can be caused by either environmental conditions or physical impacts on the trees root system or a combination.

 

I have used thermal imaging to monitor drought stress in trees, because it is an extremely useful tool to allow quick and easy observation of water in trees, particularly on a site basis. I have made observation of the drying out of trees following prolonged periods of low rain fall. This can be pronounced on sites where soil compaction is prevalent. In such conditions it becomes possible for decay organisms to take advantage of stressed trees and colonise areas of woody tissue that have become temporally dried out.

 

I consider that it is this eb and flow of water saturation within the tree that enables the decay fungi to colonise new wood and thus increase in size, giving the impression of a fungal 'invasion' strategy that allows us to get the idea that it is 'attacking' the tree.

 

Fungal food for thought perhaps.....

 

Andrew

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

try telling that to a horse chestnut colonised by G. australe, in which there is no defense, not hydrated cells nor chemical toxifications.

 

but i agree, that these are the 000.1%

[Fungus]

1. I find the distinction between Biotrophic and Nectrotrophic modes of decay of interest, although I find it difficult to jump to the conclusion that such are a simple variation to parasitism.

2. I wonder what biological and/or environmental factors are influencing the decay organisms to limit their successful growth within the tree. I imagine it to be a combination of available energy resources, water, oxygen, pH and temperature having an impact on the growing environment of the fungus.

3. How much research has been done to define these different decay strategies and the extent to which they could be called parasitic?

4. I am personally reluctant to label decay fungi as saprophytic, parasitic and/or symbiotic, because in truth I think that all modes, of association with their host, exist at different times during their lives together.

5. It is also my opinion that the extent of decay within the host tree is influenced more by the healthy function of the tree than the perceived 'aggressiveness' of the associated fungi whether as individuals or in combination. In effect the health of the host tree and its ability to sustain water saturated cells is the key factor that restricts the growth of any decay organism inside its woody tissue.

6. I truly believe that the biggest threat to trees is drought stress, which can be caused by either environmental conditions or physical impacts on the trees root system or a combination. I have used thermal imaging to monitor drought stress in trees, because it is an extremely useful tool to allow quick and easy observation of water in trees, particularly on a site basis. I have made observation of the drying out of trees following prolonged periods of low rain fall. This can be pronounced on sites where soil compaction is prevalent. In such conditions it becomes possible for decay organisms to take advantage of stressed trees and colonise areas of woody tissue that have become temporally dried out. I consider that it is this eb and flow of water saturation within the tree that enables the decay fungi to colonise new wood and thus increase in size, giving the impression of a fungal 'invasion' strategy that allows us to get the idea that it is 'attacking' the tree.

 

Andrew,

 

1. It's just a definition agreed upon by the international "community" of mycologists and (forest) ecologists.

2. And you can add air and water pollution (acidification, nitrification), salt, herbicides, fungicides, mechanical and natural damage (storm, lightning, forest fires) and lots of other more or less influential factors to the list.

3. I'm not going to present the long list of valid scientific research done on the subject .

4. Bare in mind, that all tree species specific organisms, whether they are parasitic, saprotrophic, co-existing or symbiotic, depending on the tree species specific life cycles of the trees, have a long history of co-evolution or synchronization with and specialization on the tree species, with the most in tree species dependend organisms rich ecosystem of Quercus robur at the top of the list of endemic European trees, during which saprotrophic macrofungi have evolved to ectomycorrhizal symbionts, which actually are in a state of balanced parasitism with (the roots of) the tree.

Besides, there are several "evolutionary transitial" macrofungi still "having their cake and eating it", such as the ectendomycorrhizal fungi, macrofungi such as Pleurotus ostreatus, Hohenbuehelia species and the anamorphs of Orbilia species catching and devouring nematodes and Paxillus involutus, Scleroderma citrinum and Thelephora terrestris, ectomycorrhizal symbionts, which have not lost the capacity to decompose dead wood during periods of lacking tree partners to form an association with.

5. The healthy functioning and the defensive system of a tree and its roots depend highly to completely on the water and nutrients transported to the tree roots by the mycelia of mycorrhizal symbionts and the input of the delivered "chemicals" (phosphorous, nitrogen, minerals, spore elements) into the assimilation processor in the trunk's base of the tree.

6. Just looking at the effects of drought from the angle of the stategies of the parasitic and/or saprotrophic macrofungi limites the scope too much to fully understand the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems and their soil food webs, including the mycorrhizal fungi. Read my post on the effects of climate and rainfall on the fruiting of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi and some of my posts on the Tree Species Specific Ecosystem under Mycological Tree Assessment.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Fungus

[BatiArb]

1. It's just a definition agreed upon by the international "community" of mycologists and (forest) ecologists.[/url].

 

How are they defined then?

 

2. And you can add air and water pollution (acidification, nitrification), salt, herbicides, fungicides, mechanical and natural damage (storm, lightning, forest fires) and lots of other more or less influential factors to the list.

[/url].

 

Agreed, perhaps I was being a little simplistic, but it was really to make the point that we need to consider the environment in which the fungi are growing and all the factors that influence this. I was therefore wondering which ones were likely to make the difference between a fungal decay strategy being biotrophic or nectrotrophic. In other words what is it about the living wood that makes the difference to the fungus living on in the tree.

 

 

 

4. Bare in mind, that all tree species specific organisms, whether they are parasitic, saprotrophic, co-existing or symbiotic, depending on the tree species specific life cycles of the trees, have a long history of co-evolution or synchronization with and specialization on the tree species, with the most in tree species dependend organisms rich ecosystem of Quercus robur at the top of the list of endemic European trees, during which saprotrophic macrofungi have evolved to ectomycorrhizal symbionts, which actually are in a state of balanced parasitism with (the roots of) the tree.

Besides, there are several "evolutionary transitial" macrofungi still "having their cake and eating it", such as the ectendomycorrhizal fungi, macrofungi such as Pleurotus ostreatus, Hohenbuehelia species and the anamorphs of Orbilia species catching and devouring nematodes and Paxillus involutus, Scleroderma citrinum and Thelephora terrestris, ectomycorrhizal symbionts, which have not lost the capacity to decompose dead wood during periods of lacking tree partners to form an association with.[/url].

 

This is one of the most interesting points that you are highlighting here and for me reinforces the fact that, as observers, we tend to look for simple answers to very complex questions. This is why I am reluctant to apply labels to fungi being one thing or another. As you describe here we are observing a series of different relationships throughout the lifetime association between a variety of co-evolutionary organisms.

 

 

5. The healthy functioning and the defensive system of a tree and its roots depend highly to completely on the water and nutrients transported to the tree roots by the mycelia of mycorrhizal symbionts and the input of the delivered "chemicals" (phosphorous, nitrogen, minerals, spore elements) into the assimilation processor in the trunk's base of the tree.

[/url].

 

Could not agree more. My point was really to emphasis the importance of the water content within the tree influencing the growth of the decay fungi.

 

6. Just looking at the effects of drought from the angle of the stategies of the parasitic and/or saprotrophic macrofungi limites the scope too much to fully understand the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems and their soil food webs, including the mycorrhizal fungi. Read my post on the effects of climate and rainfall on the fruiting of ectomycorrhizal macrofungi and some of my posts on the Tree Species Specific Ecosystem under Mycological Tree Assessment.

 

There is some great background reading here and thank you for providing it. The dynamics of fungal fruiting and rainfall / water availability is fascinating stuff...

 

I also really like your MTA system, which emphasises the importance of fungi in arboriculture.

 

This is exactly why I think we should be talking about ArborEcology and why your Tree Species Specific Ecosystem makes so much sense.

 

The challenge now is to get the philosophy generally adopted....

 

Andrew