(Arboricultural-styled) 'Fact of the Day'

[Kveldssanger]

Is it perhaps also a case of the species not needing to 'coppice' readily? Beech is late successional, so should be entering into a landscape that is already very well established, probably relatively stable, and therefore there is less inherent risk involved with any sort of practical establishment. Beech tend to sit in the undercanopy and wait for openings before swiftly occupying space, seeding rather aggressively (even when 100+ years old), and repeating the process.

 

Perhaps the strategy of beech is not one of needing to re-sprout or vegetatively reproduce (with any sort of abundance), which has lead to the development of thick bark and rapid abortion of dormant buds over millennia.

 

I have attached a few sources.

Effects of relative irradiance on the leaf structure of beech (2001).pdf

Growth of old beech in isolated areas of mature stand (2010).pdf

Height competition between Quercus petraea and Fagus sylvatica (2013).pdf

[Kveldssanger]

31/08/15. Fact #19.

 

Microorganisms that cause decay in trees are not always so small - fruiting bodies may weigh over 10kg and persist for significant periods of time. For the most part however, when we refer to microorganisms, we refer to the vegetative parts, microscopic bacteria, and yeasts.

 

Single cells of bacteria may for example be only a few microns across. A micron is a thousandth of a millimetre. A millimetre is a thousandth of a metre. This is the definition of small! If you took a bacteria cell that was 3 microns across and enlarged it to the size of a 6ft human, by comparison the human would be 700 miles tall.

 

...and who said the nehpilim didn't exist?

 

Source: Shigo, A. (1986) A New Tree Biology. USA: Shigo and Trees Associates.

[Kveldssanger]

31/08/15. Fact #19.5.

 

A neat little one to do with trees on page 143 of A New Tree Biology.

 

There is a group of amoebae that inhabit both wood and the soil surrounding trees that, when viewed under the microscope, have the shape of a bat. They are aptly called vampiridae. Such amoebae digest bacteria and other minute organisms.

 

Source: Shigo, A. (1986) A New Tree Biology. USA: Shigo and Trees Associates.

[daltontrees]

I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate fact Jules.

 

I think it's a given that as a species it's not the choice of coppicers, but my observations suggest that it is capable of regenerating from large diameter stumps (12" stump in first 3 images) and I've also witnessed beech putting out epicormic growths from buttresses where there is basal decay on a number of different examples.

 

 

Call that regeneration? I don't see the Willow and Lime Coppice Marketing Board losing much sleep tonight?

 

OK so I made a bit of a bold statement but it's generally true. As I wrote it I recalled a few isolated examples of regeneration non Beech and that in my memory the shoots had formed inside the bark rather than through it. That seems to be what happened in your first pics. I just saw a monkey puzzle stump about an hour ago regenrating from buds inside the bark. I'll try and get a picture but it will be a couple, of days before I pass it again.

 

And if I am right, it asks interesting questions of how the new cambium of the shoots connect in the longer term to the stump cambium.

Edited August 31, 2015 by daltontrees

[Gary Prentice]

I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate fact Jules.

 

I think it's a given that as a species it's not the choice of coppicers, but my observations suggest that it is capable of regenerating from large diameter stumps (12" stump in first 3 images) and I've also witnessed beech putting out epicormic growths from buttresses where there is basal decay on a number of different examples.

 

 

[ATTACH]188792[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]188793[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]188794[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]188795[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]188796[/ATTACH].

 

Call that regeneration? I don't see the Willow and Lime Coppice Marketing Board losing much sleep tonight?

 

I recalled a few isolated examples of regeneration non Beech and that in my memory the shoots had formed inside the bark rather than through it. That seems to be what happened in your first pics.

 

And if I am right, it asks interesting questions of how the new cambium of the shoots connect in the longer term to the stump cambium.

 

David,

Also purely observational, but I can only remember seeing 'coppicing' on one beech stump. It surprised me at the time (over twenty years ago) and if I remember correctly, it didn't survive for more than a year or two.

 

I'm going to have to go away and think about this, it's too late/early in the day to try to draw conclusions.

[David Humphries]

I'm merely observing that beech 'can' regenerate, not that it can regenerate well/commercially.

 

 

 

.

[Gary Prentice]

I'm merely observing that beech 'can' regenerate, not that it can regenerate well/commercially.

 

 

 

.

 

Not meant as a criticism by any means David. Just an observation that I haven't seen successful regen.

[Kveldssanger]

No fact today, though I have something better...

 

...a book!

 

Out Feb 2016.

 

Wiley: Urban Tree Management - Andreas Roloff

 

...and another!

 

Out Dec 2015.

 

Mycorrhizal Networks by Thomas R Horton

[Kveldssanger]

Nah sod it, here's a fact from the fountain of knowledge that is The Fungal Community (I have only read parts - it has parts of aquatic fungi, for example, that is beyond the scope of my profession, though should make good reading somewhere down the line).

 

01/09/15. Fact #20.

 

It is well-documented and widely-understood that most plant species will have a mutually beneficial relationship with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plants benefit from the association by having improved nutrient uptake from the soil (namely phosphorus), in addition to improved drought tolerance and pathogen resistance. For AM fungi, the benefit is likely to be, near exclusively, if not wholly, energy provision by the tree.

 

Plants vary in response to AM fungi in two principal ways: (1) responsiveness (as in, the increase in growth rate following inoculation) and dependence (as in, how much artificial fertiliser would need to be added to mimic AM fungi inoculation benefits to the very same tree). Whilst both aspects are likely under some sort of correlation, they are not absolutely intertwined. To demonstrate this, take for example the fact that slow-growing plants may be largely reliant upon AM fungi inoculation as, without such inoculation, growth rate would be very slow. However, their growth response following inoculation may be less than that of a fast-growing plant that is not as dependent upon AM fungi for its growth, though when such a fast-growing plant is inoculated the rapid translocation of the increment increase in phosphorus bolsters growth rate yet further. In short, there is a different between 'benefit' and 'effectiveness'.

 

(I suppose one must look at the percentage increase in growth rate following inoculation to ascertain 'responsiveness').

 

Interestingly, though rather obvious when considered, different species will respond differently to different species of AM fungi. Species A might respond incredibly well to AM Fungi A, whilst Species B may respond only rather well. To build on this, different AM fungi species will have inherently different growth-promotion rates - it is up to the plant species how this benefit is translated into the context of symbiosis between the two. Environmental characteristics may even influence the situation, adding another dimension to the matrix.

 

Touching briefly on how AM fungi respond differently to different plant species, it seems that plants that are more 'responsive' to AM fungi are typically better, more preferred hosts, for the AM fungi (as the benefits for the AM fungi in terms of energy provisions are greater). This theory holds true by-and-large, though certain AM fungi species that colonise mycoheterotrophic plants (plants that acquire carbon from AM fungi) seem to be of (obvious) benefit to the plant, though detract from the quality of life of the AM fungi. Yet in such an instance symbiosis still occurs - why? That is surely not mutualistic! Why do the AM fungi colonise a plant knowing that they will 'lose out' in the relationship?

 

Certain AM fungi also have different population growth rates on different plant species, with sporulation differing between different host plants being the principal driver behind such an observation. Such differing population levels may be down to AM fungi-AM fungi competition for root infection sites, or simply down to allocation of resources for reproduction (sporulation) by the AM fungi on a particular species of root.

 

I could go on...but I won't!

 

Source: Bever, J. & Schultz, P. (2005) Mechanisms of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Mediation of Plant-Plant Interactions. In Dighton, J., White, J., & Oudemans, P. (eds.) The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem. USA: Taylor & Francis.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[Kveldssanger]

^ It's the Third Edition of the book, by the way. Forgot to add that in.