Inonotus dryadeus

[Kveldssanger]

I don't think it's necessarily a cognitive thing in a human sense (I worded it poorly), but simply how genetics had lead to the situation of today where the more conservative fungal genotypes were more successful in terms of propagation over a longer period of time, thereby progressively dominating the foray. Spanned out over millennia, which is the length of time that the tree-fungi relationship has had to evolve, means a fine-tuned relationship that sees slower, conservative decay patterns and successful compartmentalisation by-and-large (on those trees that did reach maturity) is entirely possible. There are exceptions obviously, though this is where survival strategy kicks in (rK continuum).

 

Philosophically-speaking, nature is cognitive. It responds. Not in the way we are cognitive, though nonetheless a form of cognitive. Think chemical triggers, in particular. How do specialised opportunists latent in sapwood know when to attack? Chemical (hormonal) signals (among other things).

 

Again, this is of course only my hypothesis going on what I have read and what I have seen.

[Kveldssanger]

I wouldn't say my hypothesis would clash with things having to happen for a reason. I doubt a microorganism is going to go "eh, sod it, I'm bored, let's degrade some of these cell walls" (I jest). A level of 'awareness' within fungi is necessary. One of my old facts about mycorrhizae networks in soil triggering reactions in plants not yet even host to a pathogen is another example of this.

 

The other interesting concept is the barrier zone itself. The cambium will respond even on the opposite side of the tree to where the wound was inflicted, forming the barrier zone. What caused a tree to 'realise' that a ring-wide barrier zone is better than only a partial barrier zone? We see variation within species too - Liquidambar usually has small barrier zones, whereas other species will have zones spanning the entire circumference.

 

The whole tree-microorganism matrix (?) is hilariously complex. I do wonder where we will be 50 years from now, with regards to our understanding.

 

We can only observe this small snippet of time - we cannot see how the two have challenged one another over the generations. Our observations happen real-time - trees don't even act on the same type of 'clock'.

 

Just some ramblings, though we always look to see everything through an anthropomorphic lens. Why must intelligence be in the way we define it?

 

Probably a PhD right there...