Kveldssanger

Mensularia nodulosa (confirmed - syn. Inonotus nodulosus) on beech, New Forest. Delighted with this one! Also plenty of other fungi on this tree (you can see Hohenbuehelia atrocoerulea in the background and Chondrostereum purpureum, too).

Perhaps this will burst peoples' respective bubbles here, but please note that Trump didn't actually select the countries - Obama did, according to the link and its sources. The Department of Homeland Security listed those nations in a press release in February of 2016: The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries. ... Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.

Today... Opeth's My Arms, Your Hearse LP [ame] [/ame] Tribulation's latest LP [ame] [/ame] ...and some Sólstafir whilst driving. [ame] [/ame]

Being a arborist. Being a arborist. Being a arborist.

29/01/17. #217. The extent of attention as to exactly how critical trees are for fish populations is unfortunately not all that significant (in comparison to the study or trees and birds, for example), though this is not necessarily surprising – this is perhaps because fish spend their lives largely under water, and thus their presence is not necessarily recognised to the degree it would be if fish were land-based organisms. However, there is certainly a healthy array of research that has been undertaken into this relationship of trees and fish within the forest ecosystem, as is demonstrated below. Many undisturbed pools (areas of slow-moving or still water within in rivers and streams) in forests are either created or enhanced by the presence of deadwood (as either driftwood or sunken wood). Such deadwood presence can also raise water levels locally and create a diverse range of aquatic habitats (Hodge & Peterken, 1998) by damming up rivers and streams, and reducing flow velocity (Barbour et al., 2001; Gippel et al., 1996). Large woody debris (including fallen stems and large branches) is particularly critical in this regard, and research has shown that nearly 30% of pools within a stream or river may be created by such woody debris (Mossop & Bradford, 2004). A gathering of many fallen branches significantly obstructs the flow of this stream through the New Forest, UK. Such obstruction creates niche habitats on both sides of the log jam. Source: Author (2016). Other research has, whilst not focussing on large woody debris exclusively, identified that as much as 75% of all pools may be created from submerged woody debris (Robison & Beschta, 1990a). Through the creation of these habitats, fish populations can increase, as their range of viable habitat increases – notably for feeding and spawning (Harvey, 1998). However, because even the largest of woody debris will likely not persist for over 50 years, there is a need for a continuous replenishment if streams and rivers are to retain the presence of deadwood-induced pools (Hyatt & Naiman, 2001). When pools are instead created by wood jams, which are made of small (and sometimes also large) branches and stems clustered together, their average viable retention time may only be between 2-3 years (Lisle, 1986). Again, a need for a constant supply of such deadwood is necessary, and this should obviously mean management practices retain trees that can constantly provide for such woody material (Robison & Beschta, 1990b). Driftwood may be particularly beneficial for fish populations, as not only will its presence control flow velocity, but also protect its banks from erosion, create waterfalls and pools, and thus provide protection for fish spawning as well as increasing habitat diversity (Gurnell et al., 2002). Additionally, driftwood can provide hiding places for species of fish, assisting either in their predatory pursuits or in evading predation (Crook & Robertson, 1999; Werneyer & Kramer, 2005). Sunken (or partially submerged) deadwood, for those fish species which are insectivorous, can also be highly valuable (Barbour et al., 2001). The wood’s provision of habitat for invertebrates means there is a potential abundance of prey for such insectivorous fish (O’Connor, 1992). A study into the effects of deforestation on wood input levels into woodland stream environments there unsurprisingly showed how reduced amounts of sunken deadwood led to reduced fish diversity and abundance (Wright & Flecker, 2004). In such wood-void streams, wood-eating fish (such as certain species of catfish, whilst not ‘true’ xylivores) may also suffer (German & Bittong, 2009; Lujan et al., 2011), though the loss of diversity in a stream (or river) environment, both because of reduced wood presence and the faster flow associated with such a lack of wood, may also have wider implications for fish species overall (Lancaster et al., 2001; Shields & Smith, 2002; Tsui et al., 2000); particularly when it is understood that a lack of (large) sunken wood is indicative of a degraded stream (Shields et al., 2006). It is also suggested that sunken wood may aid with orientation for fish (Crook & Robertson, 1999). Some significantly-decayed deadwood from a fallen willow (Salix sp.) will offer aquatic organisms – including fish – the opportunity to forage and seek shelter. Source: Author (2016). Deadwood that has fallen and become (partially) submerged is also beneficial, as previously ascertained, because it creates pools within a stream or river ecosystem. These pools are areas of a stream or river where the flow is potentially very slow, and in the redwood forests of California downed trunks and branches of trees are considered to be crucial for constituent salmon populations (Barbour et al., 2001). Notably, in areas of steeper ground, this fallen deadwood can create tiers of pools, which actually enable salmon (that travel upstream to breed) to ascend up the river with more ease, as the salmon can ‘leap’ from one pool to another, and swim against a current with reduced velocity (which is critical for the enabling of salmon to conserve vital energy). These pools also reduce bankside erosion and catch up to 85% of sediment (which may amass behind a large branch or stem, though perhaps even more significantly amongst larger wood jams comprised of deadwood of varying sizes), ensuring the rate of sedimentation of the stream or river is slow and sustainable (Berg et al., 1998; Smith et al., 1993; Thevenet et al., 1998). This is important for the salmon, as females nest within the clean gravel beds in the riverbed, and any marked rate of sedimentation would prohibit this (Madej & Ozaki, 2009). These nesting sites may also, in fact, be located within close proximity to large pieces of woody debris (Senter & Pasternack, 2011). The very same deadwood can also support plant life, particularly when a large stem has fallen across a river, and therefore the plants growing atop the log can shade the river and keep the water cooler – this is also critical for the salmon, which prefer cooler waters (Welsh et al., 2001). This willow has fallen but remains alive, offering a further and somewhat different aspect to the aquatic environment. Source: Author (2016). Across the United States, in the Appalachian Mountains, research by Jones et al. (1999) has also revealed that the reduction in sedimentation created by fallen woody debris is critical for other species of fish (including the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss), that spawn in sediment-free riffles within the forest areas of the mountains. Furthermore, their research highlighted that deforestation along riparian zones as little as 1km in length can have massive adverse effects upon the quality of habitat for fish, due to the removal of the source of such critical deadwood. The associated re-growth after the felling, whilst still injecting debris into the water courses, cannot match the size of the debris from older-growth stands, and therefore rainbow trout occur less frequently and at lesser densities (Flebbe & Dolloff, 1995). Deforestation also increases the risk of severe flooding and high flow velocity within the Appalachian Mountains, which can both extensively decimate viable habitat for rainbow trout within the ecosystem. In part, this is because such factors eliminate the fauna that occupy the river bed, which the trout almost exclusively predate upon. Beyond the realm of deadwood, the beneficial impacts of shading by large trees adjacent to such aquatic environments can also improve the suitability of the habitat for fish (Beschta, 1997; Larson & Larson, 1996). Using the redwood forests as an example once again, it has been recognised that large conifers that reside by a water course cast shade and thus reduce maximum temperatures and the risk of thermal pollution (Madej et al., 2006). Such cooler temperatures, much like how deadwood can support plants that shade and cool waters, protects critical nesting locations for female salmon, reduces the subsequent mortality of juvenile salmon, and improves their growth rate. The shade this single hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) provides the river beneath, whilst not necessarily significant, will be of measurable benefit. Source: Author (2016). Beyond California, the cooler waters created through significant (50-80%) canopy shading are equally as important for fish, for similar reasons (Broadmeadow & Nisbet, 2004; Broadmeadow et al., 2011; Swift Jr & Messer, 1971). Such canopy shade may also enable for rivers and streams to support macrophytes (plants growing in or near water), which can act as a food source for some fish species both directly and indirectly. Similarly, they can provide refuge for fish seeking shelter from predators (Pusey & Arthington, 2003). Therefore, retaining riparian trees is mandatory, if viable habitats for fish are to be protected (Young, 2000). A line of willow and ash (Fraxinus excelsior) dresses the southern side of this river, meaning the water remains continually shaded throughout the day. Source: Author (2016). References available on my blog.

Thanks for the expansion, Paul. From being in the New Forest earlier today (Bolderwood), I saw many examples of this on the spruce - that is, stumps with some significant woundwood growth.

I'd anticipate it would be due to root grafting, solely because I don't know what else could have caused this. Awesome photo.

Looks it

Sounds like a challenge

Oh sweet - see you there in October. How is it going so far?

Fungi names change a fair bit. For example, Piptoporus betulinus is now Fomitopsis betulina, meaning the genus Piptoporus is now redundant (after Piptoporus quercinus was removed some years prior, when it became Buglossoporus quercinus). Best bet is to type in a species name here and then it'll show you the most updated name. It's updated a lot, so is rather spot on.

Very frequently observed on horse chestnut is this fungus. Note its proper name is now Cerioporus squamosus, as of last year.

Use Google Scholar. I found countless articles just searching 'fungal enzymes wood decay'.

Think I might buy that book at some point. It's very detailed!

"Laccases, lignin peroxi-dases (LIPs), and manganese-dependent peroxidases (MNPs) are three classes of lignin-modifying enzymes that are believed to be important in the fungal degradation of lignin by white rot fungi" http://aem.asm.org/content/62/10/3739.full.pdf

I expect that the localised secretion of hydrogen peroxide would be another depolymerisation mechanism in the brown rots.

You'd be looking at the lignolytic and cellulolytic enzymes. E.g. laccase, tyrosinase, etc. Do you really have to go into that much depth in that particular question?

Nor am I convinced, but from that image alone it's not worth ruling out. It's likely something else. How thick is the crust? Shall get back to your PM tomorrow, Gary. Just got in and out at Greenwich all of tomorrow. Busy busy!

Flat to the bark = resupination. If that is Laeti then it's just rotting, however. David can hopefully chime in with his views, on that one. Aye, the Bjerkandera on HC is commonplace. Trametes gibbosa follows, as it parasitises upon the mycelium of Bjerkandera before entering 'wood-decay mode' so to speak.

1. Flammulina velutipes / elastica 2. Tremella mesenterica 3. Pleurotus ostreatus 4. Laetiporus sulphureus 5. Crepidotus mollis 6. Bjerkandera adusta ...are what I'd say. The Laeti would be a really old one, if it is that (is it on a cherry?). Note these are only my suspicions, too - not necessarily 100% accurate.

This artcle by Frank Rinn is very interesting and sheds some great light into the good accuracy of the microdrill for discerning incipient decay and also for essentially counting growth rings in ring-porous trees. I cannot obviously provide the PDF file, though here is the link.

That's the Narcissus ash.

That's what I like to hear. (I prefer the pine, however - lovely tree!)

Good series of posts, David. How's the Heterobasidion going on it?

Here is the article I'd suggest you read http://www.londonfungusgroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Ganoderma.pdf