Illustrations for UKTC postings

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hi all, due to reasons I wont go into Ive started this thread for a link back for images I am unable to show on UKTC so that I can link to them in specific relation to threads on the UKTC forum, feel free to discuss, but its more for that other purpose.

 

 

I will say this, you lot are pussy cats compared to that crowd!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Pruning as a natural co evolutionary process, and man as part of that process as an inclusion of the ecology of trees.

 

Trees are pruned in nature by many forces, both biotic and abiotic, trees and fungi have co evolved throughout evolution, fungi no doubt present long before the trees. The fungi are quick to adapt to new resources, and have the capacity to breakdown ANY naturaly occurring compounds, even petro chemicals. It is simply absurd to assume that protection is possible, selection is another matter, for fungi need to posses the right enzymes in order to break down certain compounds.

 

I have no doubt that trees produce various chemicals in order to protect celluar structure but that this protection is not absolute and in fact has evolved along with certain species specific macrofungi in order to "select" preferred species and so co evolution.

 

There are many relationships in the tree fungi community that at first glance may sem highly one sided and negative in impact, this is however far from the truth. The relationship between trees and their species specific fungi, excluding non species specific "pathogens" is very complex and their ecologies are greatly interlinked.

 

It is not in the species specific fungus own interests to kill the host, that is not a strategy for ultimate success, true success in nature requires mutual cooperation's or what Alan Rayner would call "Natural inclusion"naturally inclusive relationships" True pathogenesis is extremely rare in nature because it is a self defeating process that eliminates the host species, see dutch elm disease.

 

Trees are primary producers, they also consume resources from the soil in order to make that product (sugar) they lock carbon up in their structures in huge quantities and convert the gas other organisms expire (carbon and convert it into oxygen) this is basic eco system cycling. If trees where able to avoid decay they would consume all the available resources and then die, they would be blind in their consumption (like us really) and die out as resources became limited.

 

So the relationship between trees and fungi is quite simple in these terms, trees include fungi, and generally fungi don't consume more than they need. It is far from THAT simple but basically it is principle.

 

If we understand this basic principle we can grasp that trees and fungi live in a stable but fluctuating relationship, if one or the other becomes too dominant they fall down and the other rises, this way balance within the forest ecosystem is maintained.

 

There are many many different forms of relationship in this highly ordered but complex system, and it is all to easy to see only one side of the coin and develop a biassed view of the whole system. There are true pathogens, true symbiosis, and every shade of grey inbetween the two extremes.

 

Co evolution is key in understanding the deeply complex relationships between fungi and trees.

 

One such relationship that is easily observed and documented is the relationship between our Native Ash Fraxinus excelsior and the fungus responsible for its self pruning Inonotus hispidus, another in need of much research is the even more highly evolved relationship between our native white oaks Q robur/petrea and fistulina hepatica, both these fungi can appear at first glance to be highly negative. In one forestry journal this negative impact was desribed as "collateral damage via Inonotus hispidus" this is highly detrimental wording and shows a fundamental error in our collective understanding of the complex relationships trees have with thier species specific macrofungi.

 

We seem to be very slow in adapting our views on these relationships, with a forestry commission article perpetuating such mis perceptions it is no surprise:confused1:

 

I shall add images shortly but wanted to get the typing done before tea!

Edited April 8, 2012 by Steve Bullman

[RobArb]

Can I debate some opinions of my own when back off me jollies and loaded with ammo?

 

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Can I debate some opinions of my own when back off me jollies and loaded with ammo?

 

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

 

why not, ammo? put any shots over my bow and prepare to receive returns!

[Fungus]

Co evolution is key in understanding the deeply complex relationships between fungi and trees ... One such relationship that is easily observed and documented is the relationship between our Native Ash Fraxinus excelsior and the fungus responsible for its self pruning Inonotus hispidus ... these fungi can appear at first glance to be highly negative. In one forestry journal this negative impact was desribed as "collateral damage via Inonotus hispidus" this is highly detrimental wording and shows a fundamental error in our collective understanding of the complex relationships trees have with their species specific macrofungi.

 

Apart from the anamorph Chalara fraxinea of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, Fraxinus has no tree species specific parasitic macrofungi. Even Perenniporia fraxinea is not restricted to Fraxinus and Daldinia concentrica also fruits from Quercus, Fagus, Alnus and Betula.

Inonotus hispidus not only occurs on Fraxinus, but also on Quercus, Aesculus, Celtis, Crataegus, Juglans, Malus, Ulmus, Platanus, Morus, Populus, Prunus, Pyrus, Robinia, Salix, Sophora, Sorbus, Tilia, Vitis and Fagus.

And Fraxinus has no symbiotic macrofungi, because it's associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi.

Conclusion : Apart from a single exclusive parasitic and only a few tree species specific saprotrophic macrofungi, Fraxinus excelsior has no tree species specific macrofungi and this tree species is not an example of co-evolution with macrofungi at all.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Fungus

[David Humphries]

Apart from the anamorph Chalara fraxinea of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, Fraxinus has no tree species specific parasitic macrofungi. Even Perenniporia fraxinea is not restricted to Fraxinus and Daldinia concentrica also fruits from Quercus, Fagus, Alnus and Betula.

Inonotus hispidus not only occurs on Fraxinus, but also on Quercus, Aesculus, Celtis, Crataegus, Juglans, Malus, Ulmus, Platanus, Morus, Populus, Prunus, Pyrus, Robinia, Salix, Sophora, Sorbus, Tilia, Vitis and Fagus.

And Fraxinus has no symbiotic macrofungi, because it's associated with endomycorrhizal microfungi.

Conclusion : Apart from a single exclusive parasitic and only a few tree species specific saprotrophic macrofungi, Fraxinus excelsior has no tree species specific macrofungi and this tree species is not an example of co-evolution with macrofungi at all.

 

 

So instead of 'tree species specific' it could perhaps be regarded (where appropriate) as 'tree associated macro/micro species' ?

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

true Gerrit, that hispidus is found on many other broadleaf species, but that doesnt alter the FACT that ash is its very much more common host and that on this host and on juglans too, it is responsible for loss of heavy limbs and subsequent re growth and retrenchments.

 

So species specific actions, but non species specific host range?

[Fungus]

So instead of 'tree species specific' it could perhaps be regarded (where appropriate) as 'tree associated macro/micro species' ?

 

Why introduce the term "tree associated species" if it concerns generalistic species of macrofungi, that are associated with lots of different tree species with which they didn't co-evolve, nor develop unique relationships ?

And there are no symbiotic microfungi associated with Fraxinus that do not also associate with hundreds to thousands of trees and green plants, including grasses, because all endomycorrhizal symbionts are super generalists by nature.

[Fungus]

1. the FACT that ash is its very much more common host

2. So species specific actions, but non species specific host range?

 

1. Not on the continent.

2. Could be, but probably because of the characteristics of the living tissues and dead wood of the tree species and not because of the caracteristics of the fungus, just as in the unique case of Platanus with its starch rich radial rays.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

1. Not on the continent.

2. Could be, but probably because of the characteristics of the living tissues and dead wood of the tree species and not because of the caracteristics of the fungus, just as in the unique case of Platanus with its starch rich radial rays.

 

thank you, Ive been meaning to start a thread deddicated to I. hispidus, shall work on that a bit later, it always fascinates me the differnces between fungi and location/species/environmental differences. Here it proves to be a fairly mutualy succseful relationship in many ash, not obviously that simple but you get my point.