Beech, Armillaria?

[Guest Infinitree]

Hi Gerrit, Noted.But wouldn't that approach be more appropriate for a garden or somewhere where there is little biodiversity within the soil and tree stock giving the honey the upper hand?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hi Gerrit, Noted.But wouldn't that approach be more appropriate for a garden or somewhere where there is little biodiversity within the soil and tree stock giving the honey the upper hand?

 

[treeseer]

ID: From the pics it resembles what is called "beech bark disease". Dry black droplets at cankers; bleeding lesions. A few smooth black patches inside; aka melanine plaque, or...? I see these types of signs in several species here, and am in need of education: where in these pics is a sign that *proves* armillaria infection?

 

Management: Has significant strength been lost yet? If not, is any management required at this point? I could see 10% off the top, in hopes of budbreak further down, but no more.

 

Is 10% really enough to throw the pathogen (Arm or...) into an aggressive fury? If the 10% removed were the least productive branches at the periphery, might this not be a rejuvenative treatment? What about 5%? 15%?

 

Tree response: did you see how deep decay went, or locate the lateral margins of the infection, to see 1 what % of the circumference it occupies, and 2 whether the tree was callusing there? These typically more than anything are the best guides to management imo. One strategy is to mark and measure and photograph the margins, then return and compare. The Appropriate Response Process, it was called. If the owner is not pressing for an immediate decision, is it not best to let the tree have a say in its own fate?

 

It does not look good, and next to the driveway may or may not be a desired location for a monolith, so I'm not voting to retain, at any height. But it seems premature to vote fell, or vote at all, before the extent of the problem is better understood.

[Fungus]

But wouldn't that approach be more appropriate for a garden or somewhere where there is little biodiversity within the soil and tree stock giving the honey the upper hand?

 

That depends on the circumstances, for instance drought and the level of air and water polution (nitrification) play an important role. You must take into account, that Armillaria is a parasite reacting to disturbed conditions by acting as a process accelerator stopping the tree from becoming or being a parasite of its own tree species specific ecosystem because the tree no longer shares most of its self-produced sugars with the (symbiotic) partners depending on the tree.

In The Netherlands and the western parts of Germany this far we've seen several hundreds of beeches and/or oaks in lanes, alongside local roads, on estates and at the edges of beech and oak woods of which the root systems have been infected and colonized by rhizomorphs. I have monitored an infected oak wood for eight years during which the presence of rhizomorphs on the roots of the trees increased from 40 % to 90 % because of extreme nitrification (manure).

And because of that we have chosen for the proactive strategy of removing an infected lane or roadside tree and both its neighbours to prevent the rhizomorphs from spreading.

[Fungus]

1. it resembles what is called "beech bark disease".

2. Has significant strength been lost yet?

3. Is 10% really enough to throw the pathogen (Arm or...) into an aggressive fury?

4. did you see how deep decay went

 

1. Caused by what pathogen or pathogens ?

2. Of course not. Parasitic Armillaria's first kill and degrade the living tissues leaving behind a stable tree "corpse" before its mycelium starts decomposing dead wood outside in and for the first time fruits.

3. Yes, it's enough to trigger the further spreading of the rhizomorphs.

4. See 2.

[treeseer]

1. Caused by what pathogen or pathogens ?

Attributed to Nectria sp. " In North America, the disease results when the beech scale insect, Cryptococcus fagisuga, attacks the bark, creating a wound. Later, two different fungi (Nectria coccinea var. faginata and Nectria galligena) common to North America can invade the tree through the wound, causing a canker to form."

 

2. Of course not. Parasitic Armillaria's first kill and degrade the living tissues leaving behind a stable tree "corpse" before its mycelium starts decomposing dead wood outside in and for the first time fruits.

 

So the question is, will trees respond to the exposure/drying protocol, done successfully on tree crops, by compartmentalizing the infection?

 

Quercus alba in the disturbed landscape has closed Armillaria infections, with no sign of interior decay, even to a tomograph.

 

3. Yes, it's enough to trigger the further spreading of the rhizomorphs.

 

That is surprising--how susceptible the tree, and how strong the pathogen!

What about the Disease Triangle?

Don't factors like condition, vitality, location, site moisture, and strength of inoculum, play a part in the rate and inevitability of infection?

 

Could the culturing of compatible/symbiotic plants reduce nitrogen levels enough to make a difference?

[Samba]

Make that four for reduce, then in time monolyth. Doesn't hurt leaving a bit of standing deadwood

[Fungus]

1. Attributed to Nectria sp. " In North America, the disease results when the beech scale insect, Cryptococcus fagisuga, attacks the bark, creating a wound. Later, two different fungi (Nectria coccinea var. faginata and Nectria galligena) common to North America can invade the tree through the wound, causing a canker to form."

2. So the question is, will trees respond to the exposure/drying protocol, done successfully on tree crops, by compartmentalizing the infection? Quercus alba in the disturbed landscape has closed Armillaria infections, with no sign of interior decay, even to a tomograph.

3. Don't factors like condition, vitality, location, site moisture, and strength of inoculum, play a part in the rate and inevitability of infection?

4. Could the culturing of compatible/symbiotic plants reduce nitrogen levels enough to make a difference?

 

1. As I said several times before, Nectria infections are not associated with black oozing. C. fagisuga is exclusively associated with the (later) presence of N. coccinea (see photo 1), that only causes bark deformations (see photo 2), i.e. not cankers. And only N. ditissima and N. galligena cause the formation of cankers (see photo 3 and 4) on beech.

2. IME with indigenous oaks on the European continent, no (see photo 5).

3. Sure, but the main cause of the infection with parasitic Armillaria on the European continent is excessive nitrification for which can not be compensated by whatever method used.

4. No (see 3). Besides, a forest is not a (managed) garden with trees and neither an arborist nor a forest ecologist is a gardener, I hope .

---

[Fungus]

Make that four for reduce, then in time monolyth. Doesn't hurt leaving a bit of standing deadwood

 

Did you read my posts on the prevention of spreading of rhizomorphs ?

[treeseer]

1. As I said several times before, Nectria infections are not associated with black oozing. C. fagisuga is exclusively associated with the (later) presence of N. coccinea (see photo 1), that only causes bark deformations (see photo 2), i.e. not cankers. And only N. ditissima and N. galligena cause the formation of cankers (see photo 3 and 4) on beech.

 

Well then North American mycologists need to identify the cause of those lesions then!

 

2. IME with indigenous oaks on the European continent, no (see photo 5).

 

Has drying out or otherwise treating Arm. infections ever been formally studied over there?

 

3. Sure, but the main cause of the infection with parasitic Armillaria on the European continent is excessive nitrification for which can not be compensated by whatever method used.... a forest is not a (managed) garden with trees and neither an arborist nor a forest ecologist is a gardener...

 

Gerrit, here again the difference is clarified. Arborists manage trees and their associates in the landscape, not the forest. If installing a new associate helps the tree, that's in the realm of arboriculture. If forest ecologists will not intervene to that extent, that seems to be a limitation they have in prescribing care for landscape trees.

 

Has anyone looked--formally, anecdotally, in any way, at alternative methods for managing Arm. that may be due to nitrification, short of tree removal?

If not, is it scientifically accurate to say that no other method will compensate for nitrification?

Thank you for bearing with these questions from an underinformed arborist.