Kveldssanger

Just a heads up that I won't be doing a fact today.

Because it's the right thing to do. By advocating the opposite, you essential justify the permission of ignorance.

Of course. I suppose panic-fruiting is a decent term when explaining to laymen who may not grasp the entire exit strategy fungal species adopt when conditions are less than desirable, though I do admit that for us professionals there's a need to perhaps look beyond using such slang.

Because she obviously fails to grasp the bigger picture. I'm all for self ownership et al, though when her opinion is potentially dangerous (out of ignorance / shortsightedness - and I don't mean dangerous in that way, as I am sure you understand) then someone at least needs to inform her of the wider implications.

Whilst people are obviously entitled to their view points, one must question the lack of awareness this lady has for the wider situation. Her shortsightedness, likely through little fault of her own (she simply is not aware of the ecological impact it might have), needs to be addressed. Is this her fault, or the system's fault?

I greatly appreciate the comment. A reminder for me to be acutely aware of using 'slang' - so to speak - when describing a science. I paraphrased, and I shall instead quote directly. "Fruit bodies should not be taken as a sign of active / fit mycelium as they may in fact be produced as a response to unfavourable conditions (abiotic or biotic)." How one now defines "response to unfavourable conditions" is open to slight interpretation, perhaps. One could potentially define it as a sort of 'panic-fruiting' (admittedly it is a poor piece of terminology, and perhaps something along the lines of 'strategic fruiting in light of problematic site conditions' would be more appropriate, no?).

Doesn't surprise me that much...

Anything beats Eastenders! Keep us posted.

09/09/15. Fact #29. Sporophores (fungal fruiting bodies) are "the tip of the ice berg" when it comes to the overall wood decomposition process. Quite obviously, the presence of a fruiting body means fungal mycelium is present within the tree, though the number of fruiting bodies should not significantly facilitate with the estimation of the extent to which fungal mycelium may have progressed within the wood. Similarly, the lack of a fruiting body doesn't mean decay is not present. Before sporophores can be formed, the mycelium must have access to "sufficient" resources required for sporophore formation. Further to this, and as established in a prior fact on fungal strategies / life processes, the 'strategy' a fungi adopts (be it ruderal or otherwise) also dictates how rapidly sporophores may be produced. To illustrate this, a tree may be host to two fungal species: A and B. A colonised before B, though B produced sporophores before A due to its 'strategy' being more ruderal and / or because it requires less energy to generate sporophores. Further, certain fungal species don't even need to produce distinct fruiting bodies to propagate. Vegetative spread and asexual sporulation within the vascular system or from internal mycelium (then relying on insects to carry spores - Dutch elm disease?), are two ways in which a sporophore need not occur. It is also important to recognise that sporophore presence does not mean the fungi is 'fit'. Panic-fruiting may be the reason for sporophore formation, in response to undesirable internal conditions (good compartmentalisation and / or lack of food source). A 'bail-out!' approach, so to speak. Source: Boddy, L. (2001) Fungal community ecology and wood decomposition processes in angiosperms: from standing tree to complete decay of coarse woody debris. Ecological Bulletins. 49 (1). p43-56. Note on source - you can pick a copy up (it's a book) for quite good value on Amazon. Got mine for a few quid. The full title is: Ecological Bulletins 49 - Ecology of woody debris in boreal forests.

No worries. As and when.

I wouldn't say my hypothesis would clash with things having to happen for a reason. I doubt a microorganism is going to go "eh, sod it, I'm bored, let's degrade some of these cell walls" (I jest). A level of 'awareness' within fungi is necessary. One of my old facts about mycorrhizae networks in soil triggering reactions in plants not yet even host to a pathogen is another example of this. The other interesting concept is the barrier zone itself. The cambium will respond even on the opposite side of the tree to where the wound was inflicted, forming the barrier zone. What caused a tree to 'realise' that a ring-wide barrier zone is better than only a partial barrier zone? We see variation within species too - Liquidambar usually has small barrier zones, whereas other species will have zones spanning the entire circumference. The whole tree-microorganism matrix (?) is hilariously complex. I do wonder where we will be 50 years from now, with regards to our understanding. We can only observe this small snippet of time - we cannot see how the two have challenged one another over the generations. Our observations happen real-time - trees don't even act on the same type of 'clock'. Just some ramblings, though we always look to see everything through an anthropomorphic lens. Why must intelligence be in the way we define it? Probably a PhD right there...

I don't think it's necessarily a cognitive thing in a human sense (I worded it poorly), but simply how genetics had lead to the situation of today where the more conservative fungal genotypes were more successful in terms of propagation over a longer period of time, thereby progressively dominating the foray. Spanned out over millennia, which is the length of time that the tree-fungi relationship has had to evolve, means a fine-tuned relationship that sees slower, conservative decay patterns and successful compartmentalisation by-and-large (on those trees that did reach maturity) is entirely possible. There are exceptions obviously, though this is where survival strategy kicks in (rK continuum). Philosophically-speaking, nature is cognitive. It responds. Not in the way we are cognitive, though nonetheless a form of cognitive. Think chemical triggers, in particular. How do specialised opportunists latent in sapwood know when to attack? Chemical (hormonal) signals (among other things). Again, this is of course only my hypothesis going on what I have read and what I have seen.

Blimey. Great bit of info!

From reading Shigo's books he does suggest this - sort of a 'mutual' relationship where trees have evolved to compartmentalise decay and organisms have evolved to accept they will likely be compartmentalised into (at most, unless insects bore through or man drills into and breaches the barrier zone) the wood that was present at the time they entered. Further, as decay is very rarely just undertaken by one microorganism (many boundaries within decayed wood may exist and be host to many different decay organisms), it doesn't seem farfetched to consider that organisms may accept that they must be conservative in their efforts to 'consume'. This is probably also why some are able to be both parasitic and saprohytic - boundaries still exist following tree death (the barrier zone does), and in adopting such a strategy they bide their time and wait until the tree has died - or is on its last legs. Both usually bring along insects that bore and birds that predate on the insects, breaking down the barrier zone and allowing the decay organism to break-out of its bounds and colonise more wood. It really depends on survival strategy of the fungi, when it comes down to it, though we see with heart-rotters that most of the marshmallows are inedible to begin with (the wood is too dry / wet / void of oxygen / etc), so they must bide their time and be very conservative and eat very slowly so to not starve before more marshmallows become available.

It's not in the best interest of the fungal species to exhaust its food too quickly, else it also kills itself. The compartmentalisation process has evolved to the benefit of both the tree and decay microorganisms. The fourth wall tends to lock fungi within the wood present at the time of wounding (unless insects bore through or further wounds occur), and particularly when species have heartwood with lots of extractives (such as oak), decay will be slow. The marshmallow analogy does apply therefore, to a degree. I'd perhaps say however that you're locked in a room full of marshmallows, and those marshmallows are your food source forever more. Once they run out, they run out. And the locks to the door are tight - at least from the inside - there is no way to get out. You need to budget your feasting to prolong your existence in the hope someone breaks you out. And even then, someone may never come to your aid, and you starve after exhausting the food source. Obviously sporophores complicated the analogy a bit, but for the most part it stands.

It's always tricky. When people (non-industry people) see fungal fruiting bodies they think the worst, and unfortunately being seen to do something in response to the bracket presence (usually pruning) is necessary; at least, when it comes to LAs. So many people pushing from so many different angles, and if something does go wrong following inspection to a tree with a fruiting body that is deemed to be 'acceptable' so to speak (poor choice of word)...

Shall do that today, cheers. Let me know what your friend says, too. I'll ask someone I know at the FC direct.

Wonder if one could get funding for it?

I know there are some true black pops nearby to me - might look to get some cuttings. Anyone know of any trials looking to bring all the males and females together and making a woodland out of them? So all the different genotypes in the country in one place, thereby aiding with the outbreeding of any potential genetic drift. Could certainly help genetic diversity...

08/09/15. Fact #28. The black poplar is considered one of the UK's most endangered trees. As of 2006, around 7,000 individuals remained (of which approx. only 600 were females), and many were aged around the 200 year mark - clearly therefore reaching their final years. Remaining black poplars are therefore declining yearly, with Suffolk alone losing one third of its black poplars between 1987-2006. As little planting (or natural regeneration of the species) has occurred over the last few decades and centuries, the species may soon succumb to extinction (within thirty years of the book being published). The plight of the black poplar really came to public attention in 1994, where Radio 4 presenter John White raised the issue (this was soon followed by an article in The Daily Telegraph by Peter Roe). Roe launched The Black Poplar Hunt (in conjunction with the Tree Council and Forestry Commission), and from this hunt 250 poplars were mapped (that topped-up Edgar Milne-Redhead's survey and mapping of 1,000 or so poplars during the mid 1970s). By the late 1990s, around 2,500 poplars were mapped, of which 150 were female. Source: Cooper, F. (2006) The Black Poplar: Ecology, History & Conservation. UK: Windgather Press. (updates to these stats are welcome)

The guy is probably still in denial! We fall so hilariously foul of over-indulging ourselves in natural systems. The sooner we learn to do the bare minimum required, the better. Nature is not pretty either - it is functional. We shouldn't try to see nature through the human-constructed lens of beauty. The beauty in nature is its ability to self-order / self-regulate.

Busy these last few days, so facts are on hold. May get round to one later when the other half is asleep. Got a book on black poplars, so will have one from that tomorrow at the very least.

Great shout - absolutely agree. For the worms! (seriously) I also considered, when reading about planting on old landfill sites with compacted ground, whether 'inoculating' an area with a huge mass of worms would be feasible. Subsoil / rip the area, add some manure, and quite literally ferry in a load of earthworms in boxes.

Some here.

Do a time-lapse or something.