Inonotus dryadeus

[sean]

It wasn't my decision to fell the tree, and the tree did have other defects higher up the main main stem, and in my opinion the tree could have been investigated further and been reduced to make it safe but it was decided to fell and replant instead. Cheapest and easiest option I guess.

Would that fungus have caused the tree to rot and fail in the future? And how quickly would that have happened ? I don't know much about fungus so I'm here to learn. Thanks will

 

 

Hi Will

 

I wasn't meaning to insinuate that the blame lay at your door. I Myself have had to fell many a tree with out further investigation and it hurt me. Thanks for taking he time to post.

[Paul Melarange]

It wasn't my decision to fell the tree, and the tree did have other defects higher up the main main stem, and in my opinion the tree could have been investigated further and been reduced to make it safe but it was decided to fell and replant instead. Cheapest and easiest option I guess.

Would that fungus have caused the tree to rot and fail in the future? And how quickly would that have happened ? I don't know much about fungus so I'm here to learn. Thanks will

 

Hi Will,

 

My post certainly wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. I apologise if it seemed that way.

 

I just find it really frustrating when this sort of thing happens (and it happens a lot!).

 

Interaction between trees and fungi is immensely complex. Certain fungi affect individual tree species differently. I.e Inonotus hispidus tends to be particularly invasive on ash, whereas on London Plane it has very low invasiveness and is often successfully compartmentalised.

 

The tree vitality can have a significant affect on how invasive certain fungi can be, as can the interaction of different species and strains of fungi.

 

It is worth remembering that hollowness and the extent of decay isn't a reliable criterion in which to assess tree stability. Stem size, height, crown size (wind load) and location (exposure to wind) all make a massive difference on how hollow a tree can be before its stability is significantly compromised.

 

The speed at which fungi can degrade wood really interests me. Again it is extremely complex, however, a good friend on mine (Luke steer up in the Cumbria) likened the process to you or I trying to eat a room full of marsh mallow. It would take ages because we would have to eat a bit, digest it, go back eat a bit more, digest it etc. In order for fungi to break down the cellulose and or lignin and hemicellulose in the cell wall, they have to secrete enzymes which requires energy and time. Consequently it can take decades for fungi to degrade wood!

[Will Heal]

Thanks for posting the follow up image Will.

 

 

 

What height was the stump at when you took that shot?

 

 

 

 

 

The frustration of members around this level of tree removal is understandable as I. dryadeus is not known as an agressive fungal pathogen and I suspect a number of us may have predicted what the cross cut image may have looked like before you posted it.

 

 

 

Obviously we don't have the context of the tree as you had prior to the decision was made to remove it.

 

 

 

Do you have any other images of the tree prior to the removal?

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Hi David, the stump was about 10 inches high in the picture. I don't have any other photos of the tree sorry.

[treeseer]

Frustrating indeed; room full of marshmallow, that's a good one!

 

In the US I heard a researcher tell a room full of 400 arborists: "You wouldn't want to keep a tree with Inonotus, would ya? Huh?"

 

What makes it all the worse is, that bloke's company is the one that writes the A300 standards, and the BMPs!

The lunatics are running the asylum, and with an iron fist.

[Kveldssanger]

It's always tricky. When people (non-industry people) see fungal fruiting bodies they think the worst, and unfortunately being seen to do something in response to the bracket presence (usually pruning) is necessary; at least, when it comes to LAs. So many people pushing from so many different angles, and if something does go wrong following inspection to a tree with a fruiting body that is deemed to be 'acceptable' so to speak (poor choice of word)...

Edited September 9, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[Kveldssanger]

Hi Will,

 

My post certainly wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. I apologise if it seemed that way.

 

I just find it really frustrating when this sort of thing happens (and it happens a lot!).

 

Interaction between trees and fungi is immensely complex. Certain fungi affect individual tree species differently. I.e Inonotus hispidus tends to be particularly invasive on ash, whereas on London Plane it has very low invasiveness and is often successfully compartmentalised.

 

The tree vitality can have a significant affect on how invasive certain fungi can be, as can the interaction of different species and strains of fungi.

 

It is worth remembering that hollowness and the extent of decay isn't a reliable criterion in which to assess tree stability. Stem size, height, crown size (wind load) and location (exposure to wind) all make a massive difference on how hollow a tree can be before its stability is significantly compromised.

 

The speed at which fungi can degrade wood really interests me. Again it is extremely complex, however, a good friend on mine (Luke steer up in the Cumbria) likened the process to you or I trying to eat a room full of marsh mallow. It would take ages because we would have to eat a bit, digest it, go back eat a bit more, digest it etc. In order for fungi to break down the cellulose and or lignin and hemicellulose in the cell wall, they have to secrete enzymes which requires energy and time. Consequently it can take decades for fungi to degrade wood!

 

It's not in the best interest of the fungal species to exhaust its food too quickly, else it also kills itself. The compartmentalisation process has evolved to the benefit of both the tree and decay microorganisms. The fourth wall tends to lock fungi within the wood present at the time of wounding (unless insects bore through or further wounds occur), and particularly when species have heartwood with lots of extractives (such as oak), decay will be slow.

 

The marshmallow analogy does apply therefore, to a degree. I'd perhaps say however that you're locked in a room full of marshmallows, and those marshmallows are your food source forever more. Once they run out, they run out. And the locks to the door are tight - at least from the inside - there is no way to get out. You need to budget your feasting to prolong your existence in the hope someone breaks you out. And even then, someone may never come to your aid, and you starve after exhausting the food source.

 

Obviously sporophores complicated the analogy a bit, but for the most part it stands.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It's not in the best interest of the fungal species to exhaust its food too quickly, else it also kills itself. The compartmentalisation process has evolved to the benefit of both the tree and decay microorganisms. The fourth wall tends to lock fungi within the wood present at the time of wounding (unless insects bore through or further wounds occur), and particularly when species have heartwood with lots of extractives (such as oak), decay will be slow.

 

The marshmallow analogy does apply therefore, to a degree. I'd perhaps say however that you're locked in a room full of marshmallows, and those marshmallows are your food source forever more. Once they run out, they run out. And the locks to the door are tight - at least from the inside - there is no way to get out. You need to budget your feasting to prolong your existence in the hope someone breaks you out. And even then, someone may never come to your aid, and you starve after exhausting the food source.

 

Obviously sporophores complicated the analogy a bit, but for the most part it stands.

 

Doesn't the final sentence contradict the amended analogy in the preceding paragraph? Are you suggesting there is a form of 'self regulation' in the consumption of available food source?

 

That would be a mind bender!

[Kveldssanger]

From reading Shigo's books he does suggest this - sort of a 'mutual' relationship where trees have evolved to compartmentalise decay and organisms have evolved to accept they will likely be compartmentalised into (at most, unless insects bore through or man drills into and breaches the barrier zone) the wood that was present at the time they entered.

 

Further, as decay is very rarely just undertaken by one microorganism (many boundaries within decayed wood may exist and be host to many different decay organisms), it doesn't seem farfetched to consider that organisms may accept that they must be conservative in their efforts to 'consume'.

 

This is probably also why some are able to be both parasitic and saprohytic - boundaries still exist following tree death (the barrier zone does), and in adopting such a strategy they bide their time and wait until the tree has died - or is on its last legs. Both usually bring along insects that bore and birds that predate on the insects, breaking down the barrier zone and allowing the decay organism to break-out of its bounds and colonise more wood.

 

It really depends on survival strategy of the fungi, when it comes down to it, though we see with heart-rotters that most of the marshmallows are inedible to begin with (the wood is too dry / wet / void of oxygen / etc), so they must bide their time and be very conservative and eat very slowly so to not starve before more marshmallows become available.

[Will Heal]

Hi guys thanks for all of your replies, I probably was a bit naive in the past thinking that most fungi was terminal for trees. I am learning slowly about them and how trees react to them, I liked the marshmallow comparison, and the simple way you explained it

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

From reading Shigo's books he does suggest this - sort of a 'mutual' relationship where trees have evolved to compartmentalise decay and organisms have evolved to accept they will likely be compartmentalised into (at most, unless insects bore through or man drills into and breaches the barrier zone) the wood that was present at the time they entered.

 

Further, as decay is very rarely just undertaken by one microorganism (many boundaries within decayed wood may exist and be host to many different decay organisms), it doesn't seem farfetched to consider that organisms may accept that they must be conservative in their efforts to 'consume'.

 

This is probably also why some are able to be both parasitic and saprohytic - boundaries still exist following tree death (the barrier zone does), and in adopting such a strategy they bide their time and wait until the tree has died - or is on its last legs. Both usually bring along insects that bore and birds that predate on the insects, breaking down the barrier zone and allowing the decay organism to break-out of its bounds and colonise more wood.

 

It really depends on survival strategy of the fungi, when it comes down to it, though we see with heart-rotters that most of the marshmallows are inedible to begin with (the wood is too dry / wet / void of oxygen / etc), so they must bide their time and be very conservative and eat very slowly so to not starve before more marshmallows become available.

 

Agree all above Chris, except that in red which seems to intimate a level of consciousness in the decision making process. Now there's a whole theological discussion for another day (hopefully no time soon!)

 

Looking back at AFOTD No.21 (although relating to trees rather than fungi) "concentrations of factors" - that phrase would probably neatly encapsulate the circumstances you detail above.

 

I just can't stretch to embracing the possibility of human traits such as conservatism, patience, acceptance, strategic consumption etc in fungal colonisation. It would destroy one of the most important aspects I enjoy in arboricultural problem solving - things happen for a reason rather than on a whim (as is the case in humans.)