Arbor Logic

Tony, Ganos, depending on species and climate may not be a problem at all.....certain tree species in differing climates can certainly outgrow a Gano infection.....Species and environment as well as location on the subject is necessary to determine outcome!

Don't even begin to presume Eucs in OZ you will lose yourself and have a conniption

still would like a look at the upper crown

My bad!! didn't look close enough at the poster...UK Euc different morphology entirely.... That strategy would not however work on most Eucs in Qld.

Hey Hama, this approach sounds good in theory.....let the guy post a pic of the upper crown and see if you can make the cuts that you talk of on this Euc species. Not siding with anyone at this point but Eucs are not an Ash or Beech that enable lateral reduction such as you speak.

Wasn't aware of the study, however have been warned by Dr Ingham of culture and lab studies of mycelial cultures due to limited foods and temperatures. It is very difficult to replicate natural conditions. Will look into the NZ stuff. That is now where Ian Hood is, although NZ from OZ may as well be Scotland to Morocco in difference.

Gerrit, I am ever a student, and as stated earlier am in awe of the approach that you and Hamadryad are taking. I have taken on most of the philosophies from Dr Elaine Ingham and to the best of my ability converted them from an agricultural base and tried to utilise them in an urban system. There are flaws and I have my questions. We in Australia are very behind many of the practices that are being followed and championed by counterparts in the U.S and Europe. Partly this is because of our population and partly because of the system of education. (Arboriculture is not yet a degree in Australia) I have a book written by one of the leading experts in Fungi on wood in S.E QLD (Ian Hood) who freely admits that we don't know much about what we are doing here and don't have the students, funds or researchers to move things along. There is only 1 commercially available Mycorrhizal innoculation available in Australia and it is not native (Glomous interadices) as an example of what is acheivable. So to answer your question, my companies approach is to observe and emulate nature and trophic succession in whatever manner we can, to achieve the greatest outcome for the plant, based on my learnings to date of natural holism and the soilfoodweb. I strive to improve this understanding daily.

I guess humour is lost in this forum unless you use multiple smiley faces;) I was trying to say that I haven't met many microscopes capable of determining anything.....It is usually the user:p

I am sorry I just had to say here that I don't feel that the microscope will tell you... lol.... By using a concrete mixer capable of making concrete you can make the concrete that I am wanting!!!! or more to the point just because you have a microscope does not mean that what can be observed will be observed...Or on an even finer point... if there is something that should be observed would it not be better to explain it?

Interstingly they are all prone to attack from phytopthera..as to their defense mechanisms they are all plants from a depleted system in usually an arid environment. Their root systems allow an increase in the absorption of P.

Caesium being used as a nutrient to make new mycelia structures? Ah.............. I don't think I could support that without seeing some data

Australia, with a capital A thank you

Specifically I was referring to Brassicaceae, however there are many others. Also many Australian trees are NM including the family Proteaceae which includes Grevillea, Hakea, Banksia etc. These plants develop cluster roots and are highly resistant to Mycorrhizal association.

1. I see no dispute 2. 80% of the photosynthates that are made by higher succesional plants are taken to the roots and upwards of 50% of those are poured into the soil (and foliage). That assimilates are manufactured with the co-operation of Mycorrhizae is new but not surprising although I doubt it is ALL of the food ( I will get back to you on that) as it was my understanding that the mutualism was based on tit for tat i.e you get me iron, pottasium, magnesium etc and in exchange I will give you complex sugars and carbohydrates. Bearing in mind this relationship is only this way for the higher succesional plants as the lower in succession you move, the less this is the case. To the point were truly lower plant species give virtually no exudates and decide to utilize all energy on seed production and Mycorrhizae are positively toxic.

Hi Gerrit, I just wanted to clarify a couple of things as I am sure my ability to convey through typing is limited. I do not believe that fungus play a submissive role! And in the case of higher succesional trees it is a ratio of somethin akin to 70:30 Fungal to bacterial dominance. They are an extremely important part of the health of a tree. What I was pointing out was that all are players and plant health practitioners need to have a better grasp of the interaction of all the biomass in the soil to understand. Many people are not aware that the most concentrate form of non-leachable N in the soil is bacteria with a C:N ration of 5:1 followed closely by Fungus with an average of 15:1. However it is the protozoa and nematodes that by consuming these two guys in their daily chomping, release plant available nutrients due to their incompatabilty of their respective C:N ratios. With a shortage or a distinct rational change in the predators, plant available nutrients can be lacking for the plant even though present in the soil. I am also pointing out that trees are distinctly aerobic as are all of the beneficial microbes that form the disease suppression of the tree (Not just fungus). The type of disease supression and biology that is in the rhizosphere is controlled by the release of exudates from the tree in certain recipes at different times of the year depending on seasonal predators. These photosynthates are again not just for the fungus. I am not saying this as a means of education as I am certain you are aware of these things. It is merely to highlight the complexity of the soilfoodweb and hopefully have people asking similar questions to you and others who have that sort of knowledge about the other components and why they are so vital to plant health. Please understand I am in no way being contentious or contradictory to any of your statements, I agree with them all...just saying they are not the only thing that makes it spin and arborists need to understand that too.

It is late and I should not have this as my first post!... I have recently joined in response to the Sudden Euc thread and have spent the better part of a few days reading posts and familiarising myself with the prospective posters and gaining (if not truistically) a certain amount of understanding of your respective philosophies. Namely in this case Hamadryad, Fungus and the man formerly known as Monkey D . I have a great deal of respect for the comments placed upon this forum by you and of insights that come from people that are truly attuned to natural observations. It is people such as yourselves that would have held positions at the first societies of their respective sciences when science was first being tested. It is for this that I wanted to make mention of ideals that I feel are incongruent and are not inherently "ecological" in that they are focused on a particular bent and a particular organism that you seem to all so keenly share a passion. The observations that you have recorded and in the case of Gerrit, studied rigourously, only point to a single factor of the health of Gaia. Gerrit has mentioned links to the SoilFoodWeb of which the Director and founder is Dr Elaine Ingham, of which I am a devoted follower and student. I point this out because the holistic concepts of true plant health come from a balanced and diverse set of organisms. Dr Ingham shows us that in a microbiological world, where one organism has the upper hand, then balance, diversity and health is lacking! The circumstances that allow for control of a host species in an environment whereby age should not be a mitigating factor suggests balance has been unfairly tipped. In the case of forest vegetation, circumstances such as many of your threads suggest, should and do happen because breakdown has lead to a circumstance whereby conditions are such that certain organisms can benefit and utilize, weak, veteran, and poorly conditioned tissue. To delight in this behaviour on trees within the urban environment is putting the cart a little before the horse as the conditions that have created these "habitats" for fungal bloom is almost certainly a condition of the human sickness. It is a little like saying colds are good and lets see if we can exacerbate them. Dr Ingham once explained to me that it should be a fairly rare thing to see a FB because it suggests all the other organisms that should be there to keep it in check aren't doing their jobs (or aren't there). To delight in fungus is a great thing and I seriously commend all of you on the way you are pioneering another great tool for human understanding of microbiological and vegetative unions. I just wanted to say that it is only another discipline that gets placed into the arsenal of knowledge that we have to weaponize ourselves against the damage that we are doing. plus I just realized my avatar looks like crap