Fungus

I have to prove this one especialy to you gerrit! these images, all from one day working, ash, and oak with fruiting, beech typical "body language no fruits detected (from ground) but im so confident and also within 30 yds of oak infected. the oaks suffering severe cambium issues, and issues as you can see are directly linked to the auricularia, the section longtitudinaly dissected is directly where fruits occurred. very little fruit on the oak, but its effects obvious in much of the crown, not recovering well after previous reduction.

Tony,

Thanks , very valuable documentation of quite impressive damage caused by such an insignificant fungus.

These appear from an old wound at approx1.5m height on a beech......For the last two years they have fruited twice a year....late spring and then again sept/oct. My feeling was Pholiota Aurivella.....is it unusual fro a second fruiting? And secondly the tree is located close to a road and footpath.......what reccommendations/advice would you give for management of the tree.?

Sean,

Correct : Pholiota aurivella. Twice fruiting a year is, depending on the circumstances (rain, wind), not uncommon for a Pholiota fruiting from moist cavities inside the trunk. You can see the same phenomenon f.i. also with Polyporus squamosus.

Concerning the management of the beech, inspection of the depth and hight of the cavity and of the wall of intact wood surrounding it will not be a problem at this hight, so monitoring the damage and risk at regular intervals will suffice. As long as the year rings of the wall of intact wood surrounding the cavity are thick and stable enough to withhold the trunk from breaking, there will be no danger of falling.

And a final question in return. Is the tree at this level still repairing and overgrowing the wound with callus and bark or is the mycelium in producing toxics to prevent this more succesful in keeping the center of the wound open ?

With fungi, we will always see un usual behaviour

Tony,

Are you sure you have photograped Pholiota aurivella, because in The Netherlands, at the base of birches, you can also can find a look-a-like like the common Pholiota alnicola and at 50 centimetres to 2 metres up on the trunk another look-a-like, the very rare P. heteroclita ?

1. I had assumed/read that Meripulus was a basal/root decay & that it was not thought to ingress up the trunk.

2. Obviously the heavy topping stabilised the Tree.

3. The Picus did not pick up on any decay up the trunk (at the time), and the airspading did not show significant decay in the lateral roots which were uncovered.

 

This Beech has had Meripulus fruiting for around ten years.

Picus was in '06

Reduction was in '06

Airspade was in '08

& last shot was last year.

David,

1. After 12 years ago looking up the trunk of a still standing and living old beech, of which the crown was cut off completely, and spotting a gigantic cluster of Meripilus giganteus on top of the horizontal saw cut surface at 8 metres high, I was no longer convinced of the truth of this unjustified "belief" and started inspecting the saw cuts on trunks of felled beeches, which only had been affected by Meripilus, fruiting at the base. Until now I have documented four other cases of the same phenomenon, the last one being the beech I discussed before and show another two photo's of. So although it still is a very rare phenomenon, it certainly is a finding to take serious in dealing with old beeches attacked by Meripilus.

2. I'm sure it did, but it probably also caused the dying and decay (by the already present mycelium of Meripilus or the rhizomorphs of a (parasitic) Armillaria species) of the lateral roots corresponding with the heavily topped braches, probably triggering the formation of compensating secondary roots around the base, being colonized by the ectomycorrhizae of Laccaria amethystina, which temporarely "extra nourished" the foliage, triggering reproduction as an "offspring survival strategy" of the severely damaged tree, as I described before. So did you (recently) check the formation of secondary roots from the base of the tree and the presence of L. amethystina within a circle of halve a metre around the base of the tree in autumn ? My prediction would be, that by now or in the near future Meripilus has for some time gone or will temporarely go "underground" and with resurfacing will indicate the nearness of the collapse of the tree.

3. I am not surprised, as I had some experiences with Picus measurements not showing existing heart rot by Meripilus or Ganoderma australe, the most dramatic being the Anne Frank tree (Aesculus) in Amsterdam, which even though 17 small and big perennial brackets of G. australe were present, after two Picus measurements was diagnosed being safe - provided the tree was scaffolded with a supportive metal frame - by five tree specialists, including Neville Fay, who stated, that the tree at least would live for another ten to fifteen years and probably would survive us all .

And in my opinion, airspading and uncovering the upper side of lateral roots of a beech attacked by Meripilus does not bring much, because the mycelium attacks and follows the lower or down side of the roots from the (damaged) tip up to the base of the trunk, where it often fruits for the first time.

Photo 1. Cut through the trunk of the beech at 6 metres hight showing heart rot and a vertical crack.

Photo 2. Cut through the onset of the lower major branch where the branch was attached to the trunk showing infiltration and central heart rot with darkening decoloration (the black stuff is oil from the chain saw).

could you clarify for me what is a 'Melanine plate' ?

David,

Just as the black melanine layer surrounding a shoe string resembling rhizomorph does, a melanine sheet or layer (not plate, sorry for my poor English) covers the vulnerable white hyphae of an Armillaria species colonizing the surface of the (heart) wood (on the inside) of a tree trunk cavity and protects it from soil acids or "vinegar" acids secreted by Quercus robur (and Castanea sativa) and attacks of insects, bacteria and/or microfungi.

Surveyed these three Tilia's last autumn and realised something was affecting their vascular function. Peeled back the bark, lo & behold the mycelium of Honey fungus - Armilaria sp. (A. mellea is my guess).

David,

If you want to be sure - which might in some cases be necessary as evidence of the rightly felling of the tree - you're dealing with the mycelium of a (necrotrophic) parasitic Armillaria spp. without the presence of rhizomorphs or melanine plaques, you need to deposit a piece of the colonized trunk, f.i. the piece on photo 4, in a shady place outside and keep it moist until the mycelium fruits. In this case, it could just as well be the mycelium of another (necrotrofic) parasitic Agaricales, such as Gymnopilus junonius or Pholiota squarrosa, you're dealing with.

I have a question relating to some anecdotal observations (by others) regarding Meripilus giganteus.

It has been posited that there might be two (or more) forms, which have different impacts on the host tree.

Now I am NOT trying to pour cold water on these thoughts merely to ask what your view is. I asked the same of Francis Schwarze two months ago whilst he was delivering a workshop on Phellinus noxious, Francis had not heard this idea (of the different forms) before and felt he had seen no evidence himself to suggest it might be the case.

My own thoughts are like some of the Phellinus sp I see here in Oz, that Meripilus giganteus is responding to the range of conditions present in the host tree..which may well be (often is!) imperceptable to the unaided eye (without microscope).

Hello Sean,

Interesting question, especially because I had a discussion on this subject with Francis Schwartze more then ten years ago, which he now does not seem to remember ?

In my field research, I have looked into the impact of Meripilus giganteus on various tree species for 20 years and after microscopical research of many in vitro or in situ collected samples, I have come to the conclusion, that there is only species and one form. In this respect, bear in mind that most of the research on Meripilus done by Schwartze was in vitro, i.e. under laboratory conditions without taking the ecology or tree species specific ecosystems of the affected trees into account.

However, Meripilus giganteus is a (biotrophic) parasitic species with highly adaptive "skills" and the capability of easily and fast adjusting its strategies on the host under attack. Twenty years ago, in The Netherlands Meripilus giganteus only was reported from beeches. Today I not only have documented it on a regular base from Fagus, but also from 13 other deciduous tree species, Quercus robur/rubra, Carpinus, Betula, Aesculus, Platanus, Tilia, Ulmus, Fraxinus, Acer, Populus, Prunus, Malus and Corylus and once from a Metasequoia.

Destabilisation of the tree under attack is highly dependend on the tree species and the tree species specific strategy the mycelium applies, as M. giganteus can dispose of a dual strategy of white rotting and/or soft rotting combined with decomposition of pectin to attack different parts of the tree, i.e. the (lower side of the) roots, the buttresses and/or sub-surface wood with, so there is quite a difference in impact on the condition and stability of a tree species such as Tilia compared to Quercus robur.

To evaluate the condition of a tree under attack, one should always first take the tree species specific ecosystem and the presence or absence of certain macrofungi, like ectomycorrhizal symbionts, into consideration, as each tree species has its species specific dynamics of the ecosystem the tree is the center of and the tree and its partners have their specific ways of "communicating" about the actual situation the total ecosystem is in. One should especially look for signs in the body language of the tree and phenomenons such as emergency reproduction of the tree and/or the macrofungi fruiting on or living in association with the tree.

An example of a not by old age, but by M. giganteus triggered "emergency" reaction of a tree and one of its associated ectomycorrhizal pioneer symbionts can be found in the interaction of Fagus and Laccaria amethystina. A beech loosing its major roots after destruction by the mycelium of Meripilus, forms secundary roots originating from its base. The roots are colonized by the "awoken" mycelium of L. amethystina, which then fruits within half a metre around the base of the tree (warning sign). The mycelium absorbs rain water running down from the trunk and takes up nutrients from the soil which it delivers to the tree, after which the condition and quality of the foliage of the central crown improves, the tree produces lots of fertile seeds containing an energy reserve for two years and this way invests in off spring, which germinates in the circle around the tree base, where the mycelium of L. amethystina awaits them to be colonized.

Once the roots of the seedling are colonized, the interconnecting mycelium acts as a go between and the young tree gets its energy and nutrients both directly from the soil and - like through an umbilical cord - indirectly from the old tree until the seedling has enough foliage (photosynthesis) to stand on its own feet and supply its symbiotic partner with sugars himself, after which the indirect connection with the old tree is cut off.

The phenomenon of forming compensatory secondary roots has also been documented for tree species without ectomycorrhizal partners, such as Platanus (see photo).

And then there is the fairy tale of beeches "overcoming" an infection by Meripilus, because the mycelium does not fruit for some years. In this situation, the mycelium has gone "underground" to decompose the below ground level heartwood and only surfaces again and often for the last time after the destructive work is done. I once witnessed a 150 years old, judged by its foliage "vital" beech, which as a warning sign, after six years of absence, was surrounded by many extremely large fruitbodies (emergency reproduction) of Meripilus, slowly "sink" down its "manhole" until the base of the trunk was one metre in the earth and then slowly tip over until its crown touched the ground.

A final question. Which hosts other then the ones I already mentioned, did you document for Meripilus down under and does Meripilus also attack eucalypts and Nothofagus ?

The following photo's are attached.

1. Beech with only for the second time (!!!) fruitbodies of Meripilus at one side of its base and a vertical frost wound with cambium leakage above.

2. The base of the trunk of the same beech with a decayed center, cut at 30 centimetres above ground level, the decay of the heartwood continued up to 8 metres and even penetrated the heartwood of the lower major branches.

3. Platanus with Meripilus and formation of secondary roots.

4. Emergency reproduction of Meripilus from the last living roots of the vertical root plate of a beech fallen down without warning : the killer exposes itself only after the damage is done.

A few snaps from the weekend out in the woods at Zigzag Hill, Selbourne.

There is more to see, then just the body language of the tree, the photo's also show the body language of a perennial Polypore, i.e. of Ganoderma lipsiense on beech.

Once the mycelium has "consumed" most of the cellulose of the heartwood of the still upright standing tree for producing a new layer of tubes every year, the from that moment on developed layers - the whitish layer in the photo's - "withdraw" and only partially cover the surface of the last formed old layer.

To build these layers, the mycelium does not decompose much wood anymore, but forms them by "recycling" and reusing the inner (sterile) tissues, which makes the fruitbody hollow and reduces the risk of the fungus breaking off under its weight while the tree is still standing.

This phenomenon, called "emergency reproduction", which often can be seen with perennial Ganoderma species and with Fomes fomentarius, i.e. with species causing white rot with selective delignification ("brittle rot" : see my Album), is an indication of the risk of the short term breaking and falling of the tree.

After the tree falls and the trunk makes soil contact, the moisture it takes up triggers the mycelium to reactivate and form new fruitbodies, which sometimes grow at right angles (geotrophism) on the old ones. The mycelium then stops being (necrotrophic) parasitic and becomes entirely saprotrophic, together with many other macrofungi recycling what is left of the tree in order to close the energy or food chain of the ecosystem of the tree and reinvest all the material invested in the old tree in the ecosystems of its offspring.

iv'e seen P. squarrosa up here but never aurivella

Rob,

To spot Pholiota aurivella you have to look high up the tree, as it fruits from cavities behind old wounds of pruined branches, to see P. squarrosa down at the base of the tree, as it is a root parasite and a sub-surface wood decomposer.

you havent made the name up. but not really what you would describe here, that is more something you get in poplars and isnt really a problem ... wet wood in poplars

Rosey & Tony,

Wet wood in poplars is caused by bacteria, which enzymatically degrade the heartwood of the tree and is associated with a darkening decolorisation of the heartwood, which only becomes visible after the tree has been felled. It is not detrimental to poplars, because only the (dead) heartwood is affected, and can even be benificial to the tree, as it prevents the wood from infection with mycelia of saprotrophic macrofungi causing (white) rot and destabilizing the tree.

bacterial slime flux, probably the cause of the cancer/canker

Phytophthora bleeding canker, see : Phytophthora bleeding canker / RHS Gardening Advice for its effects on Tilia.

So auricularia is a "nectrophic" parasite? and this, nectrophic, means it kills its host?

In this case I speculated, so it maybe is, maybe not is parasitic, depending on whether its mycelium also invades and kills living tissues, but as this is (also) new to me, because I have not seen this before, further research would be needed to come to a definite answer to this meanwhile still open question. If Auricularia is not at all parasitic and the only fungus present, it would not explain for the poor and abnormal foliage of the crown of the tree. I would certainly be interested in looking deeper into this and visit the site together with you (and some of your collegues) when I'm in your country.

And necrotrophic (or optional) parasites (partially) kick of as "slow" parasites and become completely saprotrophic decomposing and recycling the remaining dead wood after the tree has died, as Ganoderma lipsiense, Fomes fomentarius, Piptoporus betulinus - all three species able of geotrophism once the tree has fallen - and Armillaria mellea/ostoyae and Pleurotus spp. for instance do, in contrast with the biotrophic parasites, such as Meripilus giganteus, Grifola frondosa, some Inonotus and Phellinus spp. and Pholiota squarrosa, of which the mycelium dies and the fruiting stops once the tree is completely killed.

well three i mean the reiterative growth of foliage, it has a very particular pattern/form/expression. So rather than remain depressed that all my work is rather misgiuded, how would I scientificaly evaluate these situations

Tony,

I think I see a beech ? If yes, Fagus is one of the tree species, which through a vice versa "pathway" in the outer year rings of the trunk has a direct link between a major branch and a mayor root and that is why beeches can not be dramatically pruined or roots can not be cut off without detrimental consequences. And why Oudemansiella mucida on a dying branch in the crown is an indicator for the attack of the corresponding root by a parasite, such as Meripilus giganteus, Armillaria mellea/ostoyae (rhizomorphs) or Xerula radicata, together with which O. mucida "walks" from the outside of the crown towards the trunk of the tree and when it has reached this far, Meripilus f.i. fruits from the affected root at the base of the trunk.

In this case, I would speculate, that Auricularia, as an "egocentric survival strategy" of a necrotrophic parasite, leaves so much of the cambium intact, that the contact between roots and branches isn't completely interrupted, so that the fotosynthesis in the poorly "fed" diminished and abnormal foliage of the small crown continues and the mycelium still can dispose of the best (non-permanently stored) nourishment around.

Do you want an apprentice!

Tony,

Not one, as many as possible to plant the seeds and/or spores of and exchange information on the dynamics of tree species specific ecosystems and the macrofungi they depend on . As I said before, what benefit does one have of knowledge, if it isn't shared with others. So I just hope, we will attract lots of your collegues to visit this site and/or my thread and Album. Is there a possibility to show how often it is visited and "advertising" for it ?

1. I doubt the armillaria could have got past the massive endophytic community of Bulgaria iquinans that erupted from this tree, the mesenterica is a top down as apposed to bottom up as in mellea.

2. I have also only bolstered my views by occasionaly coming across brackets in these scenarios, its taken me like the colybia, 5 years to come to these conclusions, it is hard to let these views go without a fight!

3. What say you to the rather unique growths that result from this colonisation, it appears to have a very unique flavour, and its just not a sweet honey like one for me!

Tony,

1. Being a representative of the pioneer phase of saprotrophic macrofungi, Bulgaria inquinans mostly develops thin layers of hyphae in the dead cambium (or in the outer zone of dead wood) and fruits breaking through and throwing off the bark (or the surface of the wood).

2. Of course you don't . In Dutch we say : Never throw old shoes away before you have found new ones to wear.

3. Could you enlighten me on this, I don't understand the question.

The aurivella is one of the most persitant fruit bodies, maybe gerrit can explain why they are so resistant to degradation? if the dessicate in cavities they are like twigs and hard to snap.

Tony,

Because they mostly grow "high and dry" "preserved" by wind, their mycelia "hide" in relatively dry cavities and their fruitbodies and especially their stems mainly consist of long intertwined fibers, resistant to breaking. Think f.i. of the difference between the round cells of the fruitbodies of Russulales, which easily crumble, versus the long intertwined fibers of the quite elastic stems of Marasmius.

Hadn't seen or come across aurivella on Birch before, top shot .

Tony & David,

I have seen it several times on birch (and besides beech, also on Platanus, Fraxinus, Populus, Ulmus, Acer and Malus), but here more often birch (and Quercus rubra, Robinia and Platanus) is attacked by Gymnopilus junonius. What is your experience with this quite aggressive parasitic fungus ?

In the second image we see the black plating and necroses/canker fully from ground to canopy, I have only ever seen the fruiting of A. mesenterica on ash and only twice within this wood, which i know intimately.

Tony,

Are you 100 % sure that the black melanine plating doesn't come from a necrotrophic parasitic Armillaria (mellea/ostoyae), although you never have seen evidence of its presence, because in my experience, as long as the mycelium protected by the black layer can uptake enough energy to survive, it will often refrain from fruiting and only starts emergency reproduction after all of the living structures of the tree have died, as can be seen after a tree has been cut without the presence of Honey Fungus fruitbodies in advance.

so what relationship does colybia have in all this? for in my experience rarely are cankers associated here in the uk with the rot of this heart dwelling fistulina, where I come across the cambium issues they are almost exclusively associated with colybia fusipes which is the fungi In my experience doing the worst of the root and lower stem cambium issues.

in these photos i suggest that colybia is the culprit, a root wound parasite and consumer of cambium only similar to armilaria but confined to cambium and at root and lower basal area. here we see little heartrot by fistulina, present no doubt, i suspect though. I will follow with a series of images that i think may help clarify my views or assit in having my view rectified.

it is almost always in grazing, high interaction sites associated with repeated root damage

Tony,

Again, very well documented . And again only the photo's also showing Fistulina fruiting, show the bark necrosis and deformation associated with the mycelium of the "beefsteak" invading the cambium, apart from two photo's, one showing a massive necrotic cancer and the other one showing some lesser developed cancers as caused by Fistulina without the evidence of fruitbodies present.

On the question of interaction between Fistulina and Collybia fusipes I can give no (definite) answer as I don't have much experience with the effects of the latter one. What I can say, is that in the "fungal world" everything is possible, even some form of cooperation between two parasitic macrofungi within (the ecosystem of) the same tree, as you see a lot in beeches, but when competition for territory starts, they will fight one another with self-produced fungicides to prevent the other from entering their territory and if their fungicides are about equally effective, you will find black demarcation lines at the bounderies of their territories, like you can see in trunks of Betula where Piptoporus betulinus and Fomes fomentarius meet. And from the photo's also depicting Collybia one can derive, that Collybia doesn't produce necrotic cancers like Fistulina does, but leaves behind a "smoother" surface of the affected wood.

On top of this, one must bear in mind, that parasitic macrofungi are the process accelerators of the natural forest responsible for killing of trees, which have become parasites of their own tree species specific ecosystem, because they no longer mainly invest in "feeding" the total ecosytem by keeping most of their diminishing energy production for themselves for producing as many seeds as possible as a symptom of emergency reproduction - Quercus has energy absorbing acorns to "feed", which normally have an energy reserve for 5 years after germination - instead of being a "sugar daddy" for all other organisms active within their ecosytem.

And that is why only two percent of all European macrofungi is biotrophic parasitic, because in healthy and varied forests only a few trees at the time are old and sick and/or dying and "in need of" (cambium) killers to end the process of destruction of their tree species specific ecosystems before it's too late and totally destroyed by the tree.

By the way, which species is depicted in one of the last photo's : Arbotonyensis humanoides ?

And here's some documentation on the necrosis caused by Fistulina hepatica at two sides of the base of the trunk of Castanea sativa.

I am not even going to contemplate the implications of this fungi, ive learnt my lesson! But here is a catalouge of images that you may draw your own conclusions from.

Tony,

Almost all of the photo's document and confirm what I already said about the effects of Pholiota aurivella on the heartwood (at great hight) of trees and especially of beech, infected by its mycelium . Conclusion : you're a perfect student and have indeed meanwhile learnt your lesson well .

As comparison, I first show a photo of Quercus robur with extensive bark necrosis caused by Fistulina hepatica, followed by four photo's showing the body language of Quercus robur and Q. rubra, of which the heartwood is severely brown rotted by the mycelium of Laetiporus sulphureus.

The second and third photo show one of the oldest Quercus robur of The Netherlands, the "kroeseboom" of Fleringen, which has completely been hollowed out by L. sulphureus, almost completely has lost his crown because of this and also has been under attack of F. hepatica, causing a giant bark and cambium necrosis at the base of the trunk (see my Album : Fistulina hepatica).

The fourth photo shows the body language of an old Q. robur, of which the heartwood of the lower end of the trunk completely has been destroyed by L. sulphureus, after which the tree, because of the massive downward pressure from the weight of the tree, has tried to compensate for its loss of stability by forming extra thick year rings, which are pushed outward by the weight of the tree and at the same time pushed on top of one another making the trunk "sink down" and the bark crack in horizontal direction. Once the cracking of the bark also takes place in vertical direction, the tree can easily give way because of the loss of its central column of heartwood and the continous pressure of its weight on the lower end of the trunk and fall.

The last photo shows a Quercus rubra, broken and split in half after the heartwood of the trunk had been brown rotted by L. sulphureus, without the mycelium ever fruiting, which is a good example of the hidden life this "sleeping bastard" sometimes lives and how it can take us by surprise. And because it concerns Q. rubra, it can not be F. hepatica being responsible for this phenomenon.

1 cannot be an armillaria, it as can be seen in image contains a flesh that like xylarias is white and brittle like carrot, if my memory is correct it was on beech, and at first i thought they was some form of puff balls like lycoperdons, but the flesh as i said was identical in form and texture to a formed xylaria polymorpha, very white and very brittle

Tony,

Conclusion : your first hunch was correct : it is Lycoperdon pyriforme, so the score now is two out of six.

some oddities that I have no ideas as to an identification, I suspected coniophora arida on the last image, and possibly a serpula for the whit crust?

is the little orange one a pluteus sp?

Tony,

Could you, if relevant, in future include as much information as possible, such as tree species of the substrate, pores, spore colour, etc. ?

1. Young Armillaria spp. and in the background black crusts of a Spaeriales, i.e. Ustulina deusta ?

2. Phlebia radiata.

3. Not a Serpula, but because the photo does not show whether the fungus has a smooth hymenium (f.i. Cerocorticium confluens) or a hymenium with pores (f.i. Physisporinus spp.) and whether it has a distinct smell (lysol), I can't give a name to it. Besides, for most of this type of Aphyllophorales a microscope is needed to identify the species.

4. With pink spores : Pluteus (cf. leoninus), with ochrous brown spores : Galerina spp.

5. On wood of oak : Mycena inclinata, on oak, but mostly on other wood : Mycena arcangeliana.

6. Correct : Coniophora cf. arida and the white one in the background : microscope.

that ash in the middle is riddled with ash canker too though, and certian the polypore came long after the cankers and cambium dysfunction.

Tony,

Which type of ash cancer do you mean, cancer caused by the ascomycete Nectria galligena or by the bacteria Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. fraxini ? If you mean the first fungal one, which I assume, sure it did, because the spores of P. squamosus infect dead wood in open (pruning) wounds first and then from the infected wound the hyphae infiltrate the cambium and the mycelium becomes (necrotrophic) parasitic. And what I meant to show as an example of "body language" of both the tree and the fungus (or fungi), is the co-existence of emergency reproduction with both "partners" in the deadly bond, the latter one fruiting from the cambium on the trunk and from the base of the tree, a not to be misunderstood signal of the possible danger of breaking or falling of the tree.