Localised distribution of Fomes fomentarius

[David Humphries]

Number 13 on this 300 year old sessile oak.

 

 

Major scaffold snapped out during a strong gale about 10 years ago.

 

Not sure how long this fruit body has been up here, as we only noticed it for the first time whilst working on the upper part of this canopy last week.

 

.

[David Humphries]

14th new tree host (poplar) is just off the site by a few meters, in a private garden.

 

Wondering if the spore that started this particular colonisation was from one of our trees, or whether its perhaps endemic across the local area.

 

.

[David Humphries]

Turkey oak that fell due mostly to Ganoderma resinaceum, but with trunk that has long colonisation of Fomes fomentarius.

 

 

These two similar aged brackets are on separated wood volumes and are at slightly different stages of maturity.

 

The lower one is currently sporulating.

 

.

[David Humphries]

No15 on the map is a new host species today, (roadside dysfunctional Acer cappadocicum) which is now the 8th separate tree species that F. fomentarius is hosted on across the site.

 

Acer cappadocicum

Betula pendula

Fagus sylvatica

Poplus x canadensis

Quercus cerris

Quercus petraea

Quercus robur

Quercus rubra

 

 

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

No16 on the map is a new location on the site that is evidence of human distribution, as the sharks tooth its fruiting on has been taken from a tree in the middle of the site and is sporulating roadside.

 

 

 

 

[David Humphries]

Had an interesting trip up to Sherwood forest yesterday, hadn't been there for about 10 years and didn't really give it justice when I was there last time.

 

Got up there early before an AA field day and took a look at the Fomes colonisation to compare against the host range at Hampstead.

 

Vast majority of the fruit bodies were on birch, although I did find some on a single dead young oak (image 3).

But unlike Hampstead there were no fruitbodies (at all) on the ancient/veteran oaks.

This suggests that climate and time play a large part in colonisation of age & species dynamics.

 

Also, where there were fruiting bodies of both Fomes & Piptoporus on a single wood volume, the Fomes brackets were more abundant than Pipto. Suggests to me that Fomes (even though its deemed to have a sapwood exposed strategy) would appear to be a more dominant coloniser than Pitoporus (which has a sapwood intact stratergy)