Fungus

From the photos, they look more like desicated tiers of Laetiporus sulphureus to me.

Edward,

Which, as opposed to the white rotting P. squamosus, is a brown rotter, hollowing the trunk.

no chance of me going bald, hairs as thick as wool! would have to be an aggressive fungus!

I wouldn't be that sure, Onygena species specialise in decomposing shafts of bird feathers and/or bird's bills (Onygena corvina), hoves, horns and human or other mammals' hair such as 100 % woolen socks .

1. It was, however, viscous, deep red-brown and fairly sticky. Attached is a close-up of the weep, plus a possible dried weep (brown light crust) just to the left of the ooze proper.

2. The tree has been dead for some time and there is a black deposit (possibly a Hypoxylon sp.?) on the stem.

Hi Scott,

1. The long vertical crack oozing on top and at the bottom does look like an indication of the presence (of rhizomorphs) of Armillaria to me.

2. The black deposit is not of fungal origin, but looks like burned (charcoal) bark to me.

the thick weep or the other symptoms though.

You mean the black tar-like oozing from a crack in the bark at two thirds from the top in the first picture ? To me that looks like bleeding coming from an infection of the cambium with (rhizomorphs of) a parasitic Armillaria species. Does it smell of vinegar acid ?

Did you mean, the bark damage precedes the growth of the ivy? I guess it must.

Hi Scott,

No, I meant the rootlets of the Hedera attached to and uptaking water and nutrients from the bark caused the blackening and maybe also the slight depression.

Looked at an oak the other day which had pushed a small section of a wall down after a wind, although it had been buckling the wall for years. Small leaves, weak extension compared to its neighbours and scatted dead wood.

The slightly puzzling bit was the blackened and slightly depressed bark near the base. I can't rule out fire, as it is in a little snicket where kids hang out, but it just looks odd. There was a fairly weep at two point close to one another. No fruiting bodies or obvious hyphae.

Scott,

Doesn't this blackening of the bark come from before present Hedera being ripped off at this side of the tree ?

No mucking around with these images. They're just too darn nice. The Wrinkled Peach - Rhodotus palmatus

David,

Nice, with the guttation droplets . On Ulmus, I suppose ?

1. I find it more co-operative to interact with those that put forward their views with a little less attack. Surely we like to be here to share our findings in a healthy & polite debating way? It has to be said that you seem to relish the attack (admitedly in a totaly qualified & scientific way)

2. From my perspective, Edward Green has done a massive amount to advance the understanding of ecology with (particularly British) Arbs & has opened the doors of perception around the interaction of fungi, trees & people. I do see his work as being a protagonist & instigator for the 'debate' which in my eyes is worthy of recognition itself.

David,

1. So do I, but "those who play at bowles (in the provocative way he does), must look out for rubbers".

2. From my perspective, he has too, but that gives him no cause to disqualifying others by telling them "some humans stand still" or are "still in the age of the Victorians" if they don't buy his claims at face value.

And what about rewriting page 40 of Fungi on Trees before the second edition is printed and published ?

a slippery little number that tried to get away!

Why so afraid of this Grass snake, Tony, you're not cold blooded, are you ?

who cares which parasol eah! tis just for fun

You're lucky this saprotrophic species is not capable of degrading keratin like Onygena species can, 'cause else you would have gone bald within a few months .

Ted Green obviously has overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus - apart from being a white rotter of heart wood from the cellulose of which it fruits - being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue (of the lower side of major roots) of beeches in his article and does not explain where the die back of the central crown of beeches with root systems colonized by the mycelium of M. giganteus comes from.

I'm taking this back, he has not overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue causing dieback of the central crown, he has distanced (and with this disqualified) himself from what he and his co-author Guy Watson wrote in Fungi on Trees (2011) on page 40 :

Meripilus giganteus

Area affected

The fungus attacks the main root structure of trees and particularly the underside of these roots.

Type of decay

M. giganteus causes a white rot, but with a "soft rot" phase in the early stages. It has a particular ability to degrade pectin, a substance that helps bind cells together. Decayed wood becomes brittle and liable to fracture both longitudinally and across the grain.

Impact/Effect/Significance

Careful and regular investigation will be required if trees with large fruiting masses of M. giganteus are to be retained, since such trees have a relatively high incidence of uprooting. The condition of the crown is not a reliable indication of the extent of weakening of the root system, since some affected trees are uprooted while still showing dense foliage, while others die standing. Also the condition of the roots near the surface can be deceptive, since the fungus is sometimes confined to the deeper roots. On the other hand, trees can remain reasonably stable if the fungus is confined to the central wood.

Indeed, as Ted says : "Science doesn't stand still - some humans do", as I do in not at face value accepting and implementing the delusion of the day based upon a single case "study", preached by a man, who also stated, that : "Today we are in the 21st century, not still in the age of the Victorians, although in the tree world it appears to be that way sometimes". Speaking of disqualifying his co-author and all other "conservative" arborists in an one-liner .

In another thread, I already posed the following question : "Can anyone explain why Meripilus giganteus is extremely rare to even non-existing for several decades in undisturbed beech woodlands on the European continent and at the same time is present to such a still increasing extreme in managed woodlands and on urban and rural beeches ?

Robin said it's because of "the little "good" funguys in woodland ecosystems" and David Goss suggested that "root systems are less likely to be damaged in woodland environments so the Merip has to fight harder to get a hold" .

As a reaction to Ted Green's article, I start with rephrasing both above statements and add 16 other differences between beeches in undisturbed woodlands and beeches in managed woodlands and urban or rural environments :

- Beeches in urban and rural environments and their root systems are often damaged mechanically (lawn mower, cars, cables, sewer system, road works, building activities, etc.).

- The tree species specific soil food webs of beeches in managed woodlands and in urban and/or rural environments lack essential tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts, that are part of and ever present in the soil food webs of beeches in beech dominated undisturbed beech woodlands with beeches of all ages.

- Because of this, beeches in managed woodlands and urban or rural environments are unable to complete their full life cycle with all the successive phases of the tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts without interruptions or skipping phases in the tree species specific life cycle.

- The "mix" of parasites, symbionts and recyclers in the soil food webs of urban and rural trees is unbalanced and differs greatly from the natural balance in undisturbed beech woodlands (20 % ectomycorrhizae, 78 % saprotrophic, 2 % biotrophic or saprotrophic parasitic).

- Because of the lack of some of all of the essential ectomycorrhizal symbionts, the defensive system of the roots, the tree and its foliage is underdeveloped, which makes the tree vulnerable for pathogens and diseases.

- The ever increasing abundance of pathogens present in managed beech woodlands and urban and/or rural environments makes it easy for parasitic fungi to spread over "short distance" with spores (300 kilometres) and/or rhizomorphs (1 metre a year).

- Underdevelopment and/or absence of the mycelia of less present tree species specific symbionts in managed beech woods and urban and/or rural environments leads to "malnutrition" and a poorer access to water resources.

- As opposed to the presence of beeches of all ages in undisturbed beech woodlands, beeches in lanes and managed beech woodlands are of the same age, which makes them all vulnerable for pathogens at the same.

- The superficial root system of beeches in undisturbed beech woodland does not have to compete with grass and plants for water (drip line).

- The ectomycorrhizae of beeches in undisturbed woodlands do not have to compete for nutrients with the endomycorrhizae of plants and grasses.

- In undisturbed beech woodlands recycling of all organic residue is complete thus keeping the food chain of the tree's ecosystem intact, beeches in urban and rural environments lack leave litter and recycling of essential elements of the food chain.

- Beeches surrounded by plants and grasses are vulnerable for root damage by larvae of insects (cockchafer) living on/from grass or plant roots.

- Beeches in undisturbed beech woodlands do not suffer from sun scald or strikes of lightning.

- Beeches in urban and rural environments suffer from compaction (road, footpath, cycle track, parked cars, etc.).

- Beeches in urban and rural environment live under extreme conditions : air and water pollution, acidification, nitrification, salt, heavy metals, etc.

- Beeches in urban and rural environments are often pruined, reduced or pollarded.

- Water management and sudden changes in water levels in urban and rural environments can either cause dehydration or "drowning" after flooding of the root system.

- In urban and rural environments, most soil food webs lack essential nutrients and minerals.

Finally, Ted comes up with an example of a beech "overgrowing" and surviving an infection with M. giganteus without being windthrown and based upon one case out of thousands of cases illustrating the opposite, declares the exception the rule and the rule exceptional, which is neither scientifically valid nor a sensible thing to do.

So the obvious question is : will he show up, support you and back you up in court if the outcome of his "single case study" has determined your decision on management of a beech with the result of windthrow with material damages ?

Obviously there's nothing listed on FRDBI (but wonder as Gerrit often does) how many of those 2000 + records are not 100% scoped ? Would be intriquing to see/hear if there are any records on the continent.

Not just not scoped (I think none of the U.K. or Dutch records is), but also not documented with specimen of all recorded findings in a herbarium, so if you want to know whether this species is present in the U.K. and/or on the continent, you'll have to start scoping and documenting (herbarium collection) every new find from now on, until there is at least one accepted record from Europe.

Ted Green obviously has overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus - apart from being a white rotter of heart wood from the cellulose of which it fruits - being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue (of the lower side of major roots) of beeches in his article and does not explain where the die back of the central crown of beeches with root systems colonized by the mycelium of M. giganteus comes from.

And how about the various very different strategies of attacking the root systems of the 17 different tree species - apart from beech and including one coniferous tree species - the on/in these species exclusively biotrophic parasitic M. giganteus is also documented from ? Are they all the outcome of co-evolution or adaptation of M. giganteus with or to all 17 different tree species or just "variations on a theme" ?

Besides, he repeats the question, I before raised in one of my posts on why M. giganteus is seldom found in natural beech woodlands without answering it, nor explaining why M. giganteus is so much and still increasing around in human dominated urban and rural environments.

Seeing Is Believing

Ted Green obviously has overlooked and failed to incorporate the documented evidence of M. giganteus - apart from being a white rotter of heart wood from the cellulose of which it fruits - being a parasitic soft rotter of living tissue (of the lower side of major roots) of beeches in his article and does not explain where the die back of the central crown of beeches with root systems colonized by the mycelium of M. giganteus comes from.

And how about the various very different strategies of attacking the root systems of the 17 different tree species - apart from beech and including one coniferous tree species - the on/in these species exclusively biotrophic parasitic M. giganteus is also documented from ? Are they all the outcome of co-evolution or adaptation of M. giganteus with or to all 17 different tree species or just "variations on a theme" ?

i suppose if of natural origin it may have been Peniophora quercina

P. quercina only lives on dead branches high up in the crown, that because of the white rot its mycelium causes, after a while fall down, and doesn't fruit on (the bark of) trunks. On the trunk it could be a Phlebia, such as the orange to lilac P. radiata.

1. all reductions and pollards are a commitment to long term management, are they not ? Willow may not be the species that offer long term stable habitat in any case.

2. If that open split was a known roost then it would be justifiable to manage the tree for that one feature alone, in my opinion. That split is almost certain to be used as a roost at some point, in some way, and is therefore protected by law, is it not ?

1. In this case, concerning willows, as you already stated yourself, no. The willows would have (had) a better chance of surviving and being/staying a habitat for animals if they had been pollarded properly to the extent, that their limbs would not have been damaged even more and much closer to the trunk during a storm within the next 5-10 years to such an extent, that the crowns were further destroyed and the trees were lost, unless they were then "pollarded" in the classical Dutch way, which is about two metres above ground level.

2. There's neither evidence of the presence of bats in the split nor in the cavity behind the small hole (black stripes : excrements), but if there was, the trees would be under protection of Dutch flora & fauna law, although they might have to be reduced to avoid risk to the public and without disturbing the habitat.

Not really sure how to contribute to this thread but here are a couple of nice shots I got last year

1. Pleurotus ostreatus

2. Ganoderma cf. lipsiense

Whilst the 'style' of reduction may be far from recommended practice there is some really nice conservation value in some of these features, which have been maintained by the manner of the work, by fault or design. If some small live growth had been retained it would have been better. Nice bat roost potential in the hazard beam type split.

My prediction on the condition and survival of both weeping willows for the near future (within 5-10 years) is, that many of the major limbs will desintegrate under the meanwhile (again) too heavy weight load and torsion forces and the bats will be homeless by then, so where's the (long term) conservation value in this approach ?

Albino Buzzards??? I remember seeing a Blackbird with white patches once, never seen a fully albino one though. I wonder if your buzzards have pink eyes? Albinos have poor eyesight, that would be a serious handicap in a raptor and as they do exist, (white buzzards), I wonder if they are true, pink eyed albinos ?

John,

These are not albino, but leucistic birds, which implies they have normal eyes and vision.

... which was to be expected from the primal stage of brown rot caused by Fistulina hepatica.

See my album on Fistulina hepatica.

Some more from another Salix and a dead Acer stump

Robin,

1. Coprinus disseminatus

2. Hypholoma sublateritium

3. Trametes versicolor/multicolor

4. Crepidotus cf. variabilis/mollis

there looked to be a very respectable t/r ratio on that stump cut ...

Phil,

... which was to be expected from the primal stage of brown rot caused by Fistulina hepatica.

During the past weeks concern has raged in Stockholm due to the decision by authorities to fell an ancient oak that stands on a central reserve of a city street. The decision seems to have been based on a series of poorly planned & poorly executed surveys of the tree, but maybe there are a series of politically motivated reasons that lay undisclosed?

Many individuals have given their time & expertise freely to try & aid the authorities in seeing that this type of decision can be made wholly on the accurate capture & presentation of data. This can then be put through scientifically based processes to form an educated conclusion & therefore a decision on management options. It would do well for any & all people involved with any decision making process to look as much as possible into this case, if only to learn how such events should not be allowed to unfold in the future. A disgraceful sequence of events!

Nod,

The evaluation of the condition and stability of the tree was done by arborists, who were incapable of assessing the tree properly.

It was said, that :

- the trunk at greater height was white rotted by the biotrophic parasitic Phellinus robustus, which turned out to be the brown rotting saprotrophic Daedalea quercina.

- the presence of a FB of Fistulina hepatica at the base of the trunk meant, that the tree lost a major root and with it threatening the tree to tip over, which is utter nonsense, because F. hepatica never has been responsible for the (wind)throw of an oak, with which it has an unique relationship investing in both the tree and the fungus to grow old,

so they felled an oak, that had just entered its second phase of 200-300 years of its tree species specific life, that could have become a veteran oak of 600-900 years old if the crown had been reduced in two stages and the because of the enclosure by a stone wall degraded root system had been given the space to restore its roots and their associations with ectomycorrhizal macrofungi needed for the revival of the tree as a whole.

Tomorrow, I'll make some photo's of the lesions and cracks, that are already there.

Documentation of the delamination, lesions, cracks, holes (cavities), fresh or old and not (entirely) closed "natural" and pruining wounds and the presence of fungi.

The willows will have a hard time keeping Pleurotus ostreatus and Flammulina velutipes (and/or Polyporus squamosus, Trametes species, Daedaleopsis confragosa and Chondrostereum purpureum) from invading the trees through the wide open wounds, because the trees are in rest and can't defend themselves during winter time.

Photo's 1-4 : delamination, lesions, cracks and holes (cavities) in far outreaching branches

Photo's 5-6 : fresh or old and not (entirely) closed pruining wounds

Photo 7 : fresh "natural" wound after the storm tore off a limb (photo 8)

Photo 9 : Stereum species on a branch

---