Picus sonic Tomograph

[Mr Fir]

I've got some better pictures if you want to have a look hama. A few notes on the FBs - the upper surface is matt, also a flame did nothing to it (as suggested by Lonsdale). The location fits G. applanatum and the fruiting body description.

 

I believe it's pretty difficult to tell Ganoderma species apart, especially G. applanatum and G. adspersum so yes, we used the Picus data showing an intact wall 4 and referenced Shwarze to confirm.

 

If on the other hand you or anyone else is able to positively identify these fruiting bodies as G. pfeifferi please do.

 

Sorry to drag this on in a Picus thread...

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

In the first new photo looking more australe, and very much less like applanatum, in the second i would still suspect G. pfeifferi, very much so, but by no means certain. Photos just aint the same.

 

one thing though, the surface, doesnt look matt to me?

 

Pfiefferi often forms hard black ridged old layers as in your photo, these look very hard and tough, applanatum can be broken at the surface via a strong thumbnail.

 

I am very interested because of the defined zone, I certainly dont recognise this as applanatum, but between Pfeifferi and australe i am still not sure.

 

my gut says pfeifferi, but wont rule out australe just yet.

[Fungus]

1. A few notes on the FBs - the upper surface is matt, also a flame did nothing to it (as suggested by Lonsdale).

2. The location fits G. applanatum and the fruiting body description. I believe it's pretty difficult to tell Ganoderma species apart, especially G. applanatum and G. adspersum ... If on the other hand you or anyone else is able to positively identify these fruiting bodies as G. pfeifferi please do.

3. yes, we used the Picus data showing an intact wall 4 and referenced Shwarze to confirm.

 

1. I assume, Lonsdale will have suggested, that the waxy yellow layer unterneath the top layer of G. pfeifferi should react to striking a match close to it.

2. No use in trying to identify either of the three perennial Ganoderma species by photo's alone : microscope.

3. All results on Ganoderma lipsiense and G. australe published by Schwarze are from in vitro experiments on/in inoculated dead wood without the in vivo present antagonists, so the data can't be generalised to the in situ situation and/or used for interpretation of tomography in the field.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Fungus

[armybloke]

So you used Picus on one tree with FB on it and felled the other? So picus are from tree still standing and pic of stump is the one witout FB, did I understand you correctly? So no correlation between Picus and stump shot? Except it would look very similar to the one you felled?

 

Ah, maybe my explanation was not good. Both were felled but I wanted to show you was that the tree that did not show the FFB had massive decay in the stem. The PICUS showed the stem of the 'other tree' with the very same internal structure as Tree 1.

 

Is that better explained?

[armybloke]

Marco,

Great documentation . A question though.

Is it in your experience valid to say, that in general tomography of (brown rotted) coniferous trees, like this Pinus, is more reliable and better interpretable than it is of most (brown or white rotted) deciduous trees, because of the differing structures of the wood ?

 

Hi Gerrit,

 

Having done a little research with our results over 7 years and talking to our in-house 'expert' (he has been the main user for 7 years) he suggests that any brown rot in either broadleaves or conifers are far easier to identify in the PICUS Tomograph results over any white rot in a tree. He suggests that the white rot in trees often give a difficult or even 'false' reading and this is error is substantiated using a resistograph for proof.

 

Hope this helps?

[Xerxses]

Ah, maybe my explanation was not good. Both were felled but I wanted to show you was that the tree that did not show the FFB had massive decay in the stem. The PICUS showed the stem of the 'other tree' with the very same internal structure as Tree 1.

 

Is that better explained?

 

:thumbup:Got it!

[Fungus]

Having done a little research with our results over 7 years and talking to our in-house 'expert' (he has been the main user for 7 years) he suggests that any brown rot in either broadleaves or conifers are far easier to identify in the PICUS Tomograph results over any white rot in a tree. He suggests that the white rot in trees often give a difficult or even 'false' reading and this is error is substantiated using a resistograph for proof. Hope this helps?

 

Marco,

It does .

[Mr Fir]

one thing though, the surface, doesnt look matt to me?

 

It's been raining.

 

I'll have to check whether the species you suggest are present far north, will let you know.

 

 

1. I assume, Lonsdale will have suggested, that the waxy yellow layer unterneath the top layer of G. pfeifferi should react to striking a match close to it.

2. No use in trying to identify either of the three perennial Ganoderma species by photo's alone : microscope.

3. All results on Ganoderma lipsiense and G. australe published by Schwarze are from in vitro experiments on/in inoculated dead wood without the in vivo present antagonists, so the data can't be generalised to the in situ situation and/or used for interpretation of tomography in the field.

 

1. Yes. Would you try this yourself?

2. That's what i thought. What magnification would you need? Be worth sending off a sample if not possible myself?

3. I didn't realise that. Is there someone else who has solid in vivo results published?

 

Quite interesting revisiting an old project with a different angle. Goes to show that you need a solid ID and all the knowledge behind the pathogen.

[Fungus]

1. Would you try this yourself?

2. What magnification would you need? Be worth sending off a sample if not possible myself?

3. Is there someone else who has solid in vivo results published?

 

1. Yes, I always do the field test to avoid unnecessary taking of a sample to identify microscopically.

2. At least 1.000 x. In this case, no.

3. No, it's not an option to do these inoculation experiments with/in living trees.

[Mr Fir]

Distribution maps of fungi records are available through links from

Species list - British Fungi

NBN maps worked well and you can get an interactive map of records too.

 

These maps show that Ganoderma pfeifferi and G. resinacium haven't been recorded anywhere near as far north as I am. Forest Research at Roslin, Edinburgh have no records of these species either. It's still quite possible the fruiting bodies are from G. australe though.

 

How many years between Picus scans would give decent data to see if the decay is progressive?