Fungus

Matt, Maybe Collybia fusipes ? And also see : this post.

Exactly , panic fruiting (?) on which coniferous tree species ?

Gollum, Correct , but not "the same, but on robur", but "the same, also on robur", unless you mean on Q. rubra, to which an infection does far more and much faster damage, then C. fusipes does to Q. robur.

Gollum, ... from a spruce, Douglas, Abies, pine or larch, that fell or was removed because of the brown rot of the roots and/or trunk base caused by the mycelium of P. schweinitzii. Also see my album on P. schweinitzii & Sparassis crispa.

... with guttation droplets .

Glen, Collybia fusipes is a biotrophic parasite, slowly killing the tree and meanwhile making the tree unstable by simultaneous white rot of the roots, buttresses and/or trunk base, see my Quercus robur & Collybia fusipes thread for some photo's of different phases of bark necrosis and shedding of bark on oaks affected by Collybia fusipes. As for your question on taking measures, it's difficult to give an advice without seeing the tree in situ, maybe David or Tony, who have much more experience with the effects of C. fusipes on the stability of oaks, because in The Netherlands and Germany its not a common phenomenon (yet), can help out.

As I've seen much more fruitings of Collybia fusipes since the end of July on roots and trunk bases of Quercus robur, then I've documented in The Netherlands over the past ten years, I open this thread with some photo's of clusters of FB's and the damage done to the trees by the simultaneous white rot causing mycelium of this biotrophic parasite of broadleaved trees. Photo 1 : Fruiting on the trunk base of an old oak with bark necrosis and loose bark at ground level. Photo 2 : Clusters of FB's fruiting around the tree base of a young oak. Photo 3 : Crown of the tree in photo 2. Photo 4/5 : Trunk base, buttresses and roots of an old oak with bark necrosis, white rot and old FB's. Photo 6 : Trunkbase of an old oak with first time fruiting of C. fusipes. Photo 7 : Trunk base of an oak with shedded bark and a crack out of which C. fusipes fruited last year. Photo 8 : Infected trunk base with bark necrosis and shedded bark.

What I meant to say is, that only branches or roots of genetically identical trees, i.e. coming from the same "father and mother", will graft, as can be seen in these photo's of merged branch bridges (see second half of the post), for which phenomenon this explanation (first half of the same post) is suggested.

Guy, 1. This will never happen as these trees are part of an extensively managed woodland. And I would prefer putting up a sign (not to the trees of course ) explaining the public what the phenomenon is all about and why it should be left in peace. 2. Sure, but in this case this is an aspect of the ecology of a woodland, so the outcome of the competition will be respected, which - of course - could be different in an urban situation with a private owner. And I think your worst case scenario will not happen and the groom and his much younger bride will be married happily ever after, or the oak will adopt the lime as his son, sharing water with him and nutrients coming from ectomycorrhizal symbionts associated with both tree species. Trees are not always at war or in territorial conflict with one another, they out of mutual interest often invest in co-existence as is seen in many types of mixed forests without a single tree species dominating all the others. 3. Which is obvious as part of their reproductive strategies, but under these circumstances, the air will be "filled" with an abundance of airborne spores, which' presence will probably be heightened by a factor 1.000+ compared to "normal" circumstances. 4. In my experience, the root tissue and/or dead wood of Tilia species is not very resistant to infections with spores or rhizomorphs of its main attackers, a single hit of a buttock or superficial root by a lawn mower will sometimes do the "trick". Besides, regeneration of or compensation for a cut mayor root takes too long for the tree to go without infection of the wound and survive on the long run, as sealants in this situation will not be applied. Superficially above and underground present rhizomorphs of necrotrophic parasitic Armillaria species can detect regrowth of damaged roots and buttraces by the growth hormones secreted by the tree from a distance of up to one metre and "grow", i.e. stretch towards the wound in a straight line with a speed of up to one metre a year while using dead wood (wood chips) as temporary food sources and stepping stones. In a research project I witnessed in the national forests of Bavaria, while I was monitoring plots in other forests with German collaegues, all damaged spruce roots in the one meter wide and 50+ centimetres deep tyre traces or "furrows" left behind by wood harvesting machines were colonized by rhizomorphs coming from aside within two years. 5. In my forest ecological view, woodlands and forests always should be "managed" according to the dynamics of tree species specific ecosytems. And the management of urban trees can profit much more from the knowledge of forest ecology then is the case in today's common arboricultural practice. 6. No, so let's leave it at that and return to the original subject.

Sean, I just watched a documentary on the nocturnal animals of NZ and was informed of a "possum pest" caused by over a million of originally Austalian marsupials, imported for their fur, called Brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), which not only damage huge amounts of trees by eating bark and branches, like the "tree rats" or squirrels do in the UK, but because of that nowadays also are partially responsible for the decreasing numbers of Kakapo's, indigenous wingless parrots, that feed on bark, leaves and seeds of trees too, for which a breeding program was started to keep them from becoming extinct. Is this possum such a serious problem, that the government has to implement measures to poison/kill as much as possible, although their efforts seem to be useless because of the ever increasing numbers of these animals ?

Which should be a much easier job, if some forum members would refrain from sending slanderous and offensive personal mails and e-mails, forcing me to (again) explicit my intentions.

To all concerned. As I didn't have the opportunity to post more then this as an opening statement on Keizer's Q&A, because the thread was started by David Humphries and because I recently have been confronted with the content of slanderous personal mails concerning me, though addressed to someone else, and with offensive e-mails by another non-British forum member, I feel obliged to clarify my intentions with the following "track record" of my efforts to share and openly discuss my expertise with the international arborist community, which I posted in reply to David's before remarks. So don't hesitate to ask any questions on the subjects I'm familiar with, as I have no other goals then providing this excellent forum of English speaking arborists and other tree "fanatics" all over the world with the best possible valid and valuable information on trees and their ecosystems. And to be clear about it, I am not fishing for compliments or in need of an ego boost, I just want to state what my intentions are, so everyone knows what to expect of me.

1. Yes, Xerocomus (= Boletus) chrysenteron s.l., an ectomycorrhizal generalist of deciduous and coniferous trees, associated with the middle and/or final phase of the life cycles of trees, although seemingly growing on dead wood, panic fruiting from the remaining living fine roots deeper in the soil, while uptaking a bit of easy accessible cellulose on the side, which also is known from other generalistic Xerocomus species, such as Xerocomus badius. 2. Prolific fruiting as a pioneer on a yet very rich substrate.

Which, together with some Chanterelles, would have been suited for quite a tasty meal . And though I know Sistotrema confluens only from pictures, I was "dragged" to H. repandum by the far to regular round spines, which look like this on S. confluens, the straw yellow colour of the FB's and the lack of forming large clusters.

1. If you mean the fungi in the first two photo's, isn't this the ectomycorrhizal Hydnum repandum ? 2. My guess would be, that both the suspected stigma and the black crust on an oak twig are Diatrype stigma. 3. What is your identification of the resupinate greyish crust with black dots or pores (?) on/in the surface ?

Tony, Great documentation of a tree host I've not seen I. dryadeus on before. Did you notice the necrotic bark and cambium cankers above the FB's ? And do you want the before uploaded fungi ID-ed ?

... which was mistaken for a girdling root by treeseer .

Of course they were, so that's why from 1996 on, the identification service was part of an educationial program with seminars and in situ workshops all over The Netherlands and Belgium following and completing a basic VTA course and only was to be used by participants of the mycological courses and workshops, which were a few hundred over the 11 years I was associated with an international tree company, which also intensively worked together with Claus Mattheck and for which I assessed and monitored over 15.000 urban and road side trees. Every identification was concluded with a report with - if necessary - specific feedback on the species and its (macroscopical) characteristics, effects on the vitality and/or stability of the tree, the measures to be taken and the short and long term prognosis of the tree. And during classes, the participants could bring their fungi in for within group identification. During this period, I for some years contributed to other VTA-courses and to the curriculum of the highschool for Dutch forest engineers with a lecture and/or an in situ workshop and to the European Tree Technician training program with a lecture and an in situ workshop, which I will restart doing next month. And I was invited to give a lecture at the 2001 Tree Care symposium in Cologne on new tree host and parasitic and/or saprotrophic macrofungi combinations and the effects on the vitality and stability of the trees. In 1996, my encyclopaedia was published, followed by my interactive CD-rom in 2000, of which the in 2009 updated version was uploaded to Soortenbank.nl : Paddenstoelen, which is free accessible to the public. I'm now working on my DVD on the Tree Species Specific Ecosystems of indigenous European tree species and the MTA-method integrating "classical" VTA and the TSSE-concept, which will probably be published (in English) beginning next year. Over the years I contributed about 25 articles on macrofungi and their ecosystems to Dutch and German magazines on nature in general, mycology and (forest) ecology. After I entirely moved back to The Netherlands three years ago, I since last year associated with another Dutch tree and (forest) ecological expertise and consultancy company, which organizes mini-symposia on trees and fungi (Minisymposium Bomen en Zwammen) with in situ workshops, to which the participants also can bring fungi to the table for identification. Before I "entered" the Arbtalk Forum, I was a moderator on three Dutch websites including fora with trees and fungi as a subject and I'm a consultant for three local tree foundations in the eastern parts of my home country. So with this "cv" and my mission statement "What is knowledge good for, if it isn't shared with others" in mind, I think I did and still do a bit of (free of charge) sharing of knowledge with the Dutch, Belgian and German arborist world and will do with you English speaking lot all over the world , if you accept my sometimes outspoken opinions, which are never meant to disqualify anyone, unless the outcomes of my field work are challenged without proper cause and without valid arguments and/or (own) research, or by people having no other interest then retailing controversial commercial products.

Sloth, As black or frothy oozing, caused by (rhizomorphs of) Armillaria species, at 60-90 centimetres height is possible (see photo with former oozing spot top left at 1 metre plus), an infection and blockage of the living tissue below the secretion spot can not be excluded. Was the flux smelling acid or neutral and where any insects observed on it ? The mushroom most probably is Mycena pura, a species decomposing litter on the forest floor, which is unrelated to the tree.

David, It's in good hands then, that is, as long as it's done properly by all arborists identifying macrofungi and the type of woodrot they cause as part of their work on trees and writing reports for their customers. Going through my database from the 11 years I provided identification services to Dutch and Belgian arborists and tree officers of municipalities, I came across these figures of false identification by the sender of the specimen. Of all the 974 identifications : - 117 were of what was supposed to be K. deusta, of which 9 turned out to be Diatrype stigma, 17 turned out to be either Hypoxylon serpens, H. rubiginosum or Hypoxylon multiforme, 2 were FB's of Chaetosphaerella phaeostroma, 1 turned out to be (the very rare) Camarops polysperma, 12 were melanine sheets of Armillaria species and 14 were of non-fungal origin. - 79 were of what was supposed to be an (necrotrophic parasitic) Armillaria species, of which 4 were of Gymnopilus junonius, 1 was of Agrocybe aegerita, 4 were of Pholiota aurivella and 7 of (the biotrophic parasitic) P. squarrosa. - 24 were of what should be Meripilus giganteus, of which 5 were of Grifula frondosa and 7 were of what should be G. frondosa, of which 2 were M. giganteus. - 36 were of either Ganoderma lipsiense or G. australe, of which only 12 were identified correctly and G. australe turned out to be the species in 31 of all cases. - there were 9 mix ups between Fomes fomentarius, Fomitopsis pinicola, Ganoderma species and Phellinus species, 7 mix ups between Bjerkandera and Trametes species and 4 between Chondrostereum purpureum and Stereum species. - 19 were sent being Pleurotus ostreatus, of which 2 were P. dryinus, 1 was P. pulmonarius, 2 were Hypsizygus ulmarius, 1 was Paxillus panuoides, 1 was Pholiota populnea and 2 were of Panellus serotinus. - and there were 7 cases of wrong identification of what turned out to be Lenzites betulina, Phylloporia ribis, Abortiporus biennis (2 x) and Heterobasidion annosum (3 x). So of all specimen about two third was identified correctly by the sender. I wonder what would have happened to some of the trees without my intervention.

In case you overlooked certain aspects of my information : - I just asked how you would solve a "problem", I didn't suggest, that pruning the root or cutting it off was my "hasty, fatalistic viewpoint" on whatever solution suggested. - both trees are standing close to a compacted dirt path without possibilities to send out roots to collect water at that side, even though the Tilia tried to penetrate the soil from the trunk base with three ill-developed roots. - the lime root is not strangling or girdling, it just touches on and around or "embraces" the base of the oak at and above ground level. - grafting will not happen as both tree species are mutually incompatible for merging cambium and bark (see : examples of non-merging trees), because of major genetic differences. - pruning the root of the lime would implicate cutting it off from its mayor water supply basin, a loss which can not be restored on the short run, if it can even be compensated for at all and removing soil doesn't prevent this type of "girdling" roots to (re)develop, because they (for the greater part) stay above ground without penetrating the soil. - besides, the surrounding woodland is invested with M. giganteus, A. ostoyae, G. australe and K. deusta, so what are the chances, the wound will not be infected with spores or rhizomorphs from close by, even though the soil is removed ? So "goodness no", I beg for your arborist compassion. Pruning the "girdling" root will on the long run kill "the little thing", which is not threating the oak by just tapping rain water running down from its stem, a natural phenomenon, which is seen quite often in woodlands and forests. And I don't see how your "option" fits in a forest ecological approach to trees being very complicated organisms interacting with one another and with thousands of other organisms, which are part of the dynamics of their tree species specific ecosystems. So my non-arborist advice would be, leave them in peace, they can go on co-existing and even sharing some ectomycorrhizal symbionts for many more years to come without interventions by tree managers. And a final question. What would you do with roots of different trees below the forest floor, if you found them in close contact by "embrasing", rubbing, crossing, girdling or even merging, together forming a complex root system connecting trees standing together at close range ? Prune them or cut them off, because it is "good arborist practice" as well ?

I think, in this case A. muscaria will be connected to the root systems of several trees in different phases of their life cycles, so it will thrive and fruit for many more years to come. Besides, if the past and ongoing year has made it possible for the trees to produce and store lots of energy, it will be "willing" to share some of its wealth with its symbionts as well.

Sean, There a lot of scientifically based documentation on this subject in Dutch, French and German too. And are you familiar with the research (dissertation) done on the complete dependence of species of beetles on brackets (and other FB's) of macrofungi for food and reproductive purposes by Georg Christian Möller ?

Which he then questions without accepting scientifically based knowledge of us poor ignorants for a fact or providing us with valid information, so I refrain from answering his questions from now on until he has contributed to his thread with extensive valid and factual scientific information himself.

Tony, Wouldn't that also be another subject suited for further valid and factual exploration and documentation by treeseer arborist Guy Meilleur ?