Fungus

To be more specific : I was referring to saprotrophic macrofungi, which by decomposing dead wood and temporarely or permanently altering the flexibility/stiffness ratio cause horizontal and/or vertical wrinkling or folding of and lesions in newly formed living tissues, because of downward (brown rot) or outward (white rot) pressure, not to (biotrophic or necrotrophic) parasitic macrofungi altering and/or killing live tissue and causing (bleeding) cankers or necrosis.

I was referring to saprotrophic macrofungi decomposing dead wood, which - IMO - I. cuticularis is, not to (biotrophic or necrotrophic) parasitic macrofungi altering and/or killing live tissue and causing (bleeding) cankers or necrosis.

No, this probably is the much darker brown Coriolopsis (Trametes) gallica with more yellowish pores.

For another 8 ectomycorrhizal species of Amanita, see : Keizer's fungus guide. And there is one species of Amanita, which (probably) is saprotrophic : Amanita inopinata.

Adding to David's pictures, another eight species of ectomycorrhizal Amanita. 1. Amanita gemmata 2. Amanita vaginata 3. Amanita porphyria 4. Amanita ceciliae (= A. inaurata) 5. Amanita excelsa (with Lycoperdon foetidum) 6. Amanita submembranacea 7. Amanita virosa 8. Amanita lividopallescens ---

1. No, the small diameter is caused by both trees not being solitary, but part of (originally) rather dense beech woods with intensive light competition planted in the period 1860-1870, which by Dutch standards means they are quite old and have entered the final phase of their live cycle. And because both trees are at the edge of beech forests, which are strongly under the influence of ammonia coming from close by heavily manured maize fields, the ecosystems (soil food webs) of both trees are severely damaged, causing the tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts (Russula, Lactarius) to disappear and the defensive system of the trees and roots to weaken. 2. If fungi are responsible for wrinkles and folds in beeches (or other trees), it is because their mycelia undermine and change the flexibility/stiffness ratio of the dead wood of the trunk by degrading cellulose or cellulose and lignin, not by invading live tissue, which only reacts to and compensates for the changes in the flexibility/stiffness ratio of the central wood. Besides, I don't see folds or wrinkles and/or modification of live tissue, i.e. signs of canker or necrosis, I see healthy reaction wood (callus) trying to overgrow and close massive and deeply rotten wounds and to compensate for the loss of stability caused by the decayed central wood.

David, See : Taphrina deformans and PESTNOTES.

David, If you want to, I can add photo's of another 8 species of Amanita to your selection. By the way, there is one species of Amanita, which (probably) is saprotrophic : Amanita inopinata.

Here is some documentation of the typical fruiting of I. cuticularis from dead wood of beech. The fruiting at greater height on the beech in the first photo started one year after the tree's death caused by M. giganteus and K. deusta. The photo with FB's from the first and second year was taken in the second year after the tree died and the annual fruiting lasted for five years in a row. The second photo shows I. cuticularis fruiting from dead wood in a massive wound of a halfway split bifurcated beech. Although some brackets to the right seem to be partially attached to live tissue, in the samples taken there was no microscopical evidence of hyphae invading and killing the newly formed callus and/or cambium layers. ---

First and only (panic) fruiting of Ganoderma australe on the horizontal trunk of a Quercus robur three month after the tree was felled. ---

Tony, Where the veteran beeches are dominant, you should look for the dynamics and succession of the middle and/or late phase ectomycorrhizal symbionts and the parasites of individual beeches to determine the individual - not the collective - condition they're in. The mix of the tree species specific ecosystems of beech and oak has its own dynamics and successive order with species of Russula, Lactarius, Amanita, Cortinarius, Tricholoma, Hygrophorus, Inocybe, Boletus, Ramaria, Sarcodon, Craterellus cornucopoides and Cantharellus cibarius mainly or exclusively specialising on both tree species.

Photo 1/2 : Geotropism of Fomes fomentarius on birch. Photo 3 : Geotropism of Hapalopilus rutilans on Sorbus. ---

Tony, Evaluating this phenomenon from a MTA-perspective, you would ask the following questions : - How old are these beeches : 150 to 200 years, i.e. still in their midlife phase or older and at the end of their tree species specific life cycle ? - Have they reached the phase of no longer being a provider ("sugar daddy") for their tree species specific ecosystem and of becoming a parasite of the ecosystem, which triggers the parasitic macrofungi to "intervene" to stop this process before the complete system is lost for the offspring of the tree and all other organisms present (in the soil food web) ? - Are the beeches in the (beech dominated or mixed ?) forest, they are part of, all the same age ? - Are the beeches panic fruiting ? - Are tree species specific ectomycorrhizal symbionts, such as Russula fellea, R. mairei, Lactarius blennius, L. acris and L. fluens, still fruiting or have they been "replaced" by generalists, such as Xerocomus badius, X. chrysenteron, Amanita rubescens, Scleroderma citrinum and Paxillus involutus, which weakens the tree and roots defensive system ? - Is secundary root development occuring from the base of the trees and is Laccaria amethystina present in the circle around the trunk bases ? Also see my MTA case study.

Tony, I don't think, Meripilus giganteus and Inonotus cuticularis are competitive, because they (normally) colonize parts of the tree which are too far apart to create an overlap in territories. On beech, M. giganteus, Pholiota squarrosa and K. deusta however "share" most of their territorial spaces. And Armillaria species, Fomes fomentarius and G. lipsiense are competitive with one another and the other four mentioned, because their mycelial territories can overlap with those of all other species.

Armillaria mellea s.s. and Coprinus micaceus s.l. .

A beech with a young elephant's head and trunk for a root ??? ---

And this is what the necrosis and the brown rot by Fistulina of the cambium and wood of the base of the trunk of a Quercus robur looks like after the bark has fallen off. ---

Last week I found this dramatic example of bark and cambium necrosis on a Quercus robur, which had been infected with Fistulina hepatica after being severely damaged by the hoofs of cows trying to eat leaves from low hanging branches of the tree by "climbing" up the base of the trunk. ---

The secretion of black fluid (last photo) is characteristic for D. concentrica, just as the concentric silvery and black circles are if you cut a specimen vertically in half. And the colour varies from purplish grey when young to reddish brown and black when old.

Tony, Did you count the number of pores, which for Coriolopsis species should be 1-2 per mm and perform the KOH test, which results in temporary blackening of the flesh for C. gallica and no blackening for C. trogii ? And though I think your identification is correct, to be 100 % sure of this being C. trogii : microscope (basidia, spores).

Or used as alternative for Russia leather to make hats and handbags from. The photo's are of handmade articles produced by the Romanian "Taplázmester" Máté Karoly shown at the recent Pilze exhibition in Essen. ---

C. domesticus also fruits with single fruitbodies or in small groups of a few specimen, so this is C. micaceus s.l., which never fruits from an ozonium and with the characteristic pieces of "mica" on top.

Tony, 1. 100 % not agree meaning you always find newly formed annual brackets fruiting on all the dead and completely defoliated trees I. hispidus is documented from ? 2. Can you prove, that in this 20 % the fruiting of annual brackets is produced by mycelium, which is not only decomposing dead wood (saprotrophic), but also is invading and killing the still living cambium as a parasite to "feed" the developing brackets at the same time ? 3. Did you (microscopically) identify the mycelium invading and killing the cambium of these trees, including the nice veteran alder, because producing annual brackets "erupting through bark on a live tree", which is only done by mycelium decomposing (cellulose of) dead (heart)wood, is no evidence of I. radiatus being parasitic, as from the inside of the tree fruiting primordia always use the shortest way out and/or the "pathway" with the least resistance (f.i. radial rays ending in a "sleeping" branch bud) to bring the annual initially soft brackets to full development.

Tony, Sure, but it does help to be one if you are evaluating the scientific validity of research done by others and are judging the value of their claims.

Erich, 1. Gardens you have "grown" are not natural forests, nor indigenous tree species specific ecosystems with a tree species specific soil food web including tree species specific ectomycorrhizal macrofungi. 2. The title of this thread is Mycorrhiza, not biochar, an artificial product, of which - as I stated many times before - never has been proven, that it has (long term) benificial effects on natural tree species specific ecosystems and the indigenous ectomycorrhizal macrofungi, which are part of it. If you would post on the subject of ectomycorrhizae, my forest ecologist's and mycologist's ears would be "soft" and wide open. 3. By repeating and reproducing citations and links on chemical fertilizers, agriculture, grasslands and food production and - again - not answering any of the questions I raised on forest ecology, tree species specific ecosystems and the natural soil food web, you dismiss yourself.