Kveldssanger

Oaks, hawthorns, chestnut, sycamore, field maple, some ash, some poplar, some cherry / prunus. Bit of everything, really.

It's really very good, so you won't be disappointed! Covers a huge range of topics, as well.

Saw a cracking chicken of the woods today at the base of a maple.

Three more shots:

I tried to get a wedge of flesh, but it was impossible. Not because of my average height (ahaha), but because there was no flesh to cut. Totally flat against the wood, and incredibly thin. Even Ted Green tried getting some flesh and couldn't!

Beech has false heartwood and oak has true heartwood. Something to consider, I would say. Also consider fungi latently present in the sapwood, like Fomes fomentarius is in beech. TIming of pruning to not cross-over with when associated fungi sporulate (so winter time).

Almost looks like the head of Baphomet!

Ganoderma austral should be Ganoderma australe. Its host range is massive, so I'd probably pen it down as most broadleaves and (probably?) some conifers - like G. applanatum. Probably an idea to get another shot of R. ulmarius, too? Good resource, mind. Sure many will find this very useful.

Would it be so brown and flattened, though? That's a largely white fungi, no?

07/04/16. Fact #187. The services that trees provide in the urban setting are largely well-recognised, and it can therefore not be debated as to whether tree presence in the urban environment is optional – it’s mandatory. However, because the urban environment is very harsh and vastly different from a natural setting in which trees have adapted (and evolved) to grow, species selection may be limited. On a similar level, species selection may be limited by available space, concerns regarding subsidence, root damage to built structures, and so on. Therefore, a species palette may be quite limited when it comes to selecting the trees to plant, and it may even consist of cultivars that are more ‘fit’ for urban use. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the palette will consist wholly of native tree species, perhaps because they cannot cope with the urban environment, or because they lack the necessary morphological traits required (such as a compact, upright crown). The desire for amenity may also see exotic trees used, as they are inherently likely to be more intriguing. The limited available options for urban tree species will lead to a limited amount of diversity within an urban landscape, with regards to tree species present (generally-speaking). In particular instances, and notably where avenues are planted, dozens (or hundreds) of trees may exist of the same species, and if they are cultivars or clonally propagated then genetic diversity may also be very limited, if not identical throughout the avenue. Such a lack of diversity, on all levels (from species to intra-species genetics), is always going to be a problem, as the tree population is left at a higher propensity of suffering significantly from a pest or disease outbreak. On the species level, if 50% of an area’s trees are of one particular species, and a pest or disease attacks that species, all are potentially at risk. This risk increases further if the trees wholly (clonal), or only partially (seed sourced from same mother), share genetic properties. Essentially, a street graced with healthy trees one year may be void of trees the next (and we can observe how the emerald ash borer did this to avenues of ash in the US). For this reason, current literature advises that a great diversity of trees are planted in urban areas, to reduce this risk. With all of this context in mind, we can now look at a study, undertaken across ten major cities over Scandinavia, that looked into the diversity (unfortunately, not on a genetic level) of constituent tree populations (see below map). In total, a little over 190,000 urban trees were featured in the study (not all cities had all their trees recorded, with some cities only possessing accurate inventories for 20% of their tree population). This figure could be split into street trees (123,000) and park trees (67,000). A map of the ten cities. After analysing all of the tree data, it was found that Tilia spp. (linden or lime) was most frequently used across the ten cities, accounting to a total of nearly 24% of all trees (though, in Helsinki, it accounted for nearly 45%). When grouped with Acer spp., Betula spp., and Sorbus spp., this amounted to nearly 60% of all trees, on average. Evidently, there is a clear reliance upon these four tree genera, which can thus be regarded as ‘staple trees’. In this sense, if any pest or pathogen were to use these genera as hosts, there is great potential for huge levels of damage. Focussing more intricately on these four genera, it was found that Tilia x europaea (European lime) amounted to 16% of all trees (and was the most common species in five of the ten cities), followed by Acer platanoides and Betula pendula, which both constituted for 9% of the total tree population. In two other cities, Tilia spp. were the dominant species, so in seven of the ten cities limes were most abundant. With regards to differences between street tree populations and those in parks, the general trend was that parks had a higher diversity of species – though not all cities had records of their park trees; either at all, or had only completed partial records. Arhus had by far the greatest number of park species, with an apparent total of 599 different species (because of a botanical garden). This towered over any other city, as can be seen below. For street tree diversity, cities had an average of around 50-60 different constituent species, though Malmo had the most at 113. Tree species diversity across the ten cities. Values of zero indicate no records were available. Of the actual diversity between species within streets and parks, Malmo ranked highest with nearly 45% of its park trees consisting of tree species not amounting in numbers to over 2% of the total tree population. This figure dropped to 36% in street scenes, suggesting Malmo’s streets are less diverse but, if particular pests and diseases were to strike, the city may potentially only lose (or have at high risk of mortality) a small segment of its overall tree population. However, only seven different tree species acconted for half of the city’s tree population (higher than all other cities), which could still leave the tree population at marked risk if the ‘wrong’ aggressor were to strike. For the other cities, that risk is even greater. Across eight of the cities (excluding Oslo and Tampere’s street tree populations), non-native tree species were more common than native tree species. However, in terms of actual tree abundance, native trees outranked non-native trees in all cities besides Arhus’s parks (not surprising, given there were 599 differnet species found in a botanical garden!). From this, we can assert that there is a greater tendency to select non-native tree species, though in lower numbers. Perhaps it is inevitable that the diversity of non-native species will trump native species as well, given the number of non-native species available for selection is vastly higher (for example, the UK only has 33 native tree species, though hundreds of viable non-native species exist for urban planting). Evidently, there is still a focus on ensuring native trees comprise the majority of actual tree numbers, which is beneficial for biodiversity. However, if an exotic pest or disease emerges, these naive trees may be struck hard (ash dieback, for example), and large losses may be incurred. The total number of tree species in park locations across those cities that possessed such data (complete or incomplete). The abundance of native and non-native tree species in the same cities. The authors also found that some tree species were isolated to particular areas (or even a single area). For example, beech (Fagus sylvatica) amounted to 7% of all park trees in Malmo, though these were isolated to one single park. Unfortunately, the exact distribution of tree species wasn’t ascertained in the study, so beyond this example there is no data. However, it does highlight that certain tree species may only be very locally abundant. This may mean that the loss of the tree species isn’t damaging to the city as a whole, as tree cover is still maintained in all other areas, though it does mean that local tree cover is almost wiped-out, and a hugely concentrated inoculum base exists for a pest or pathogen. In light of all the data provided for the study, one can certainly observe that whilst there is diversity in many cities, there is a tendency for particular genera and species to be selected in great abundance (such as lime; notably Tilia x europaea). Whilst this may be because of the practicality of using such species (survivability, growth form, amenity value, tolerance of poor conditions, etc), if a pest or disease were to use these species as hosts then there is a serious issue at hand. For this reason, it can be suggested that investigations into identifying additional species (and genera) should be undertaken, in an attempt to enrich diversity and lessen the reliance upon a select few genera and species. Of course, such an enriched diversity will come at the utilisation of non-native tree species, which runs the risk of invasive populations forming and damaging surrounding rural and woodland / forest regions. Biodiversity may also suffer, as there are few obligate associations between these exotic trees and native bodiversity. Source: Sjöman, H., Östberg, J., & Bühler, O. (2012) Diversity and distribution of the urban tree population in ten major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 11 (1). p31-39.

Wikipedia says Jun-Nov for this fungus. Caught it early, eh! A slime mould as well. Some images are really pretty - very rich in colour.

Any updates on your hunches, David?

Be prepared to spend £800 at this moment in time! It's also being re-written, at least in parts, by one of the students at Cardiff (Emma). Or that's what I understand, when she explained it to me and Alinicoll. I may be gloriously incorrect.

Nice books! The coding books would go right over my head, though I guess you need to know all of that to operate this site. A lot of knowledge we get from experiencing things, which can't be provided with books - it can only be supplemented.

Bumping this with a few shots of all of my books. You can zoom in on the images to look at them all, though I'll sort out a new list soon enough. Proud of my collection, and I can actually say I have browsed many and read a good few now from cover to cover. Spent thousands on it (I'd say ~£5000-6000).

Resource allocation in fungi is interesting, and from reading Fungal Decomposition of Wood in the past there's plenty to think about on that front. I did a little post on it here - http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/training-education/90817-arboricultural-styled-fact-day-28.html#post1363306

^ Indeed. As with any living organism, it'd seek to get the optimal results by expending the least energy (hence it would sporulate there, I would imagine). Could it not also be a localised exit strategy, as the mycelium local to that area has perhaps expended resources (or is starting to markedly expend them)? Nice eyes on that one, Alinicoll! Worthy of the Fomes Hat Award, I would say.

I went through every polypore in the Phillips book, and really struggled to find anything beyond oak mazegill (D. quercina) and oak dryad (P. dryadeus). They're too big to be blushing bracket (D. confragosa) and aren't blushing, and they cannot be a Trametes as the flesh is not white. Flesh isn't right for Abortiporus biennis. For me, the flesh colour isn't matching up to anything (asides from oak dryad), and not knowing what the host tree species is that has thrown me as well. If need be I can get more shots, as there's an abundance of sporophores on that stump. Is it a common one we're looking at here, do you think?

05/04/16. Fact #186. I’m currently reading a really quite brilliant book entitled Urban Tree Management – for the Sustainable Development of Green Cities, and there is a section where the authors discussed what the main types of land classifications are in the urban environment. A less science-heavy post than normal, hopefully this is both a nice change of pace and thought-stimulating. Firstly, we can readily observe how urban areas with have what is considered a ‘road traffic area‘. As the name suggests, these areas are situated adjacent to highways, be such highways main routes or residential ones, and the role of trees in this setting may be to: (1) provide amenity value; (2) reduce the speed of traffic; (3) cast shade and cool the highway and surrounding pavements; (4) act as a visual screen; (5) filter out particulate matter; (6) ‘catch’ rainwater in the foliage crown and branching structure so to reduce the stress upon stormwater management systems, and; (7) act as a connective structure between parks and urban woodlands for the benefit of biodiversity. However, these numerous reasons for why trees exist in the urban landscape are pressured by the numerous stressors, such as air pollution, de-icing salts, compaction, impervious surfaces (drought), low humidity, high levels of light reflectance, and high temperatures. In this sense, the roadside tree has a very tough time, and survival rates may be low in the long-term (or short-term), and only those that are truly hardy may be able to reach a good age and retain their dignity in the process. Alongside the road traffic area, we have the ‘densely built-up area‘. As noted by the authors, and also rather self-explanatory in nature, the two go hand-in-hand; particularly in the inner-city area. Therefore, many of the same stressors apply, and many of the reasons for planting also apply, though because such areas are going to be (at least, in part) residential, considerations must be given to ensuring that the constituent trees ideally don’t trigger allergic reactions in residents (Platanus spp.), emit awful smells (I’m looking at you, Ailanthus altissima), or block light to properties to a marked degree (densely-crowned species, including Quercus spp.). Perhaps, the densely built-up area is even more tricky (in both landscaping and tree survival) than the road traffic area, in terms of landscaping. Within these densely built-up areas, we may sometimes come across a green roof and / or container plants, to add greenery to the landscape. Trees and plants can, and do, exist upon the rooves of properties in inner-city areas (such as in London, where there was the Derry & Tom’s roof garden, and the Selfridge’s roof garden in Oxford Street), though these areas are very limited in terms of root space and will likely be prone to higher wind speeds (because of the higher elevation and exposed setting). This means that drought is a very real risk, and as such tree species selection may be limited to smaller species, and those which are tolerant of dry conditions. We then have the ‘sparsely built-up area‘, which may include residential areas (detatched and semi-detatched houses), small parks and green spaces, and ‘green corridors’ that may stretch across these areas. The stressors associated with this area type will be lesser than those in the densely-built up areas, though will still nonetheless exist. Trees planted in private gardens may have more scope to grow and fulfil longer lives, compared to roadside trees that may have more limited rooting space and have to compete with underground services (and the associated trenching that goes alongside repair works). Garden trees will also exist to serve a variety of purposes (depending upon personal preferences), ranging from amenity value and fruit crops, through to ecological value and adding privacy to a dwelling (conifer hedges). Old trees from prior land use (normally agriculture) may also remain, and at times form tree avenues. Retained oaks from a very old highway, now sitting within a sparsely built-up area. Outside of the built-up areas used for residential means, the urban landscape may also be host to industrial parks and commercial parks.Often, these sites are very large, and are covered with large warehouses / units, which all have their own (or shared) car parking areas. For the industrial park, trees that are planted may very well be both quick-growers and reach a large mature size, as a means of softening the visual impact of huge warehouses and the many coming-and-going articulated lorries. On the other hand, whilst commercial areas may utilise trees for similar purposes (amenity and softening), the tree species used are likely to be far more ornamental (perhaps fastigiated cultivars will be used, or sterile varieties of fruit trees). It is therefore unlikely that large trees will be planted, unless there is a central area that can support a large mature tree, or silva-celled systems have been installed complete with underground irrigation systems connected to stormwater reservoirs. For commercial parks that have indoor areas, trees can still be used, though they may be potted, be fake trees (made of plastic), or be small in nature (asides from during the Christmas period, where large conifers may be brought in temporarily). Large poplars and leyland cypress in an industrial area, shielding the large factory units. Back in the outdoors, public parks, ornamental gardens, and cemeteries, will often contain large tree populations. Here, the planting of trees is usually for amenity purposes, though the lack of competition for aerial and rooting space with built structures allows for very large trees to be planted – even avenues. Cemeteries may be host to lines of sequoias, for example, whilst parks and gardens may display unique cultivars of popular tree species, or even contain exotic tree species. Closed cemeteries may, by their very nature, be home to some of the largest trees, mature in age, and some of these may even be very old (ancient) yew trees (Taxus baccata). Public gardens are likely to have many more smaller trees, though the Chelsea Physic Garden in London has some fabulous large mature trees – cork oak (Quercus suber), ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba), magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), swamp cypress (Taxodium distichum), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), to name but a few. A huge giant sequoia in an urban park, planted for ita amenity value and ‘presence’ (status). Cutting through towns and cities, we may also come across ports, channels, and waterways. Here, riparian trees that are ideally native (willows, alders), but also non-native species that aren’t invasive (wingnuts), may most often flourish, though because these areas are likely to suffer less markedly from pollution, there is scope for the selection of a wide range of tree species. Despite this, water-borne pollutants may disrupt rooting environments, particularly nearby to ports. Therefore, the scope for tree species selection varies depending upon the context of the site. Where watercourses run through a large park area, perhaps the largest trees may be able to flourish. Remnants of old woodlands and forests may also grace urban locations, and these are classed as urban forests. These locations may also be man-made however, having been planted on old areas of plotland, parkland, or otherwise. Tree species here may often be exclusively native, though garden escapees may also frequent such areas. Depending upon the popularity and accessibility of the urban forest, soil compaction and understorey disturbance (dogs) may be a particular problem, as may fly-tipping and other pollutants emitted from nearby areas (such as roads). Sporting activities may also take place in urban forests, with off-road biking being a notable activity. Alongside human pressures, the crucial role the urban forests play in retaining relicts of biodiversity (forest islands) must be recognised, and from these ecological hubs trees in the wider landscape may provide connectivity between other urban forest islands. At times, these urban forests may be found within parklands, or adjacent to them. Brownfield (derelict) sites that have been left undisturbed can also be an important area where trees are supported. Often, the ground is polluted, compacted, and largely unsuitable, so species found here will likely have succeeded naturally and consist of early successional species: alder (Alnus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), birch (Betula spp.), elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), and willow (Salix spp.). These regenerating sites may also be important ecologically, and scrubbier areas may support reptiles. Rubble left over from past land use can also be suitable for insects, who utilise these niche habitats for shade and shelter. Lastly, we have allotment gardens. In these areas, which are usually small plots, large trees are almost certainly not going to exist. Instead, fruit trees may be commonplace, and at times old mature apples (Malus spp.), pears (Pyrus spp.), and plums (Prunus domestica) can be found. There likely exist many more niche areas within the urban landscape, though hopefully this post has given us all some food for thought. Buy the book (linked below), for many more thought-provoking reads. Source: Gillner, S., Hoffman, M., Tharang, A., & Vogt, J. (2016) Criteria for species selection: Development of a database for urban trees. In Roloff, A (ed.) Urban Tree Management – for the Sustainable Development of Green Cities. Singapore: Wiley Blackwell.

Nice find, there. Can I see two on that oak?

Punbelievable! Wondering why David isn't all over this thread like a bee to a can of opened pepsi!

Such a fun gi, eh! I'll get my coat...

Hahah perhaps it was just a ploy to get you to post more pictures! .

Oh nice! Ever seen it on elder before?