Kveldssanger

02/09/15. Fact #21. Nice and short one (plenty of room for thinking for those reading)... Trees need eight things to survive: 1. energy 2. space to grow 3. water 4. essential elements 5. concentrations of factors 6. time 7. temperature 8. genetic code As trees cannot just get up and walk away from a site and choose where they want to go, they must adapt or die. When one of the eight factors is compromised, the others suffer too - to varying extents. Source: Shigo, A. (1986) A New Tree Biology. USA: Shigo and Trees Associates.

For the academic side... Read, read, read, and read some more. Immerse yourself in information, find the bits you need to learn the quickest, nail those, then knuckle down with the more luxurious stuff you want to learn more about. A few good books that may be of use: 1. Managing Native Broadleaved Woodland (Forestry Commission book - a massive archive for only £25 or so) 2. Woodland Management - Chris Starr. 2nd edition. (very cheap - prob. under £20) 3. Stupsi Explains the Tree (Mattheck) 4. Tree Mechanics (Mattheck) 5. A Critique of Silviculture (Puettmann et al.) Best of luck! Don't go in with the mindset of thinking you'll struggle - go in with the mindset that is one of being ready to learn. Check this too - So, You own a Woodland.

The beauty of planting sycamore is you'll forever have neighbours annoyed at all the self-sown seeds around, too.

Ask David on that one - I couldn't say for certain.

Cladrastis kentukea?

That escalated into some NSFW stuff right there...! Looks like some pendulous racemes of soon-to-be seeds on the tree?

^ It's the Third Edition of the book, by the way. Forgot to add that in.

Nah sod it, here's a fact from the fountain of knowledge that is The Fungal Community (I have only read parts - it has parts of aquatic fungi, for example, that is beyond the scope of my profession, though should make good reading somewhere down the line). 01/09/15. Fact #20. It is well-documented and widely-understood that most plant species will have a mutually beneficial relationship with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Plants benefit from the association by having improved nutrient uptake from the soil (namely phosphorus), in addition to improved drought tolerance and pathogen resistance. For AM fungi, the benefit is likely to be, near exclusively, if not wholly, energy provision by the tree. Plants vary in response to AM fungi in two principal ways: (1) responsiveness (as in, the increase in growth rate following inoculation) and dependence (as in, how much artificial fertiliser would need to be added to mimic AM fungi inoculation benefits to the very same tree). Whilst both aspects are likely under some sort of correlation, they are not absolutely intertwined. To demonstrate this, take for example the fact that slow-growing plants may be largely reliant upon AM fungi inoculation as, without such inoculation, growth rate would be very slow. However, their growth response following inoculation may be less than that of a fast-growing plant that is not as dependent upon AM fungi for its growth, though when such a fast-growing plant is inoculated the rapid translocation of the increment increase in phosphorus bolsters growth rate yet further. In short, there is a different between 'benefit' and 'effectiveness'. (I suppose one must look at the percentage increase in growth rate following inoculation to ascertain 'responsiveness'). Interestingly, though rather obvious when considered, different species will respond differently to different species of AM fungi. Species A might respond incredibly well to AM Fungi A, whilst Species B may respond only rather well. To build on this, different AM fungi species will have inherently different growth-promotion rates - it is up to the plant species how this benefit is translated into the context of symbiosis between the two. Environmental characteristics may even influence the situation, adding another dimension to the matrix. Touching briefly on how AM fungi respond differently to different plant species, it seems that plants that are more 'responsive' to AM fungi are typically better, more preferred hosts, for the AM fungi (as the benefits for the AM fungi in terms of energy provisions are greater). This theory holds true by-and-large, though certain AM fungi species that colonise mycoheterotrophic plants (plants that acquire carbon from AM fungi) seem to be of (obvious) benefit to the plant, though detract from the quality of life of the AM fungi. Yet in such an instance symbiosis still occurs - why? That is surely not mutualistic! Why do the AM fungi colonise a plant knowing that they will 'lose out' in the relationship? Certain AM fungi also have different population growth rates on different plant species, with sporulation differing between different host plants being the principal driver behind such an observation. Such differing population levels may be down to AM fungi-AM fungi competition for root infection sites, or simply down to allocation of resources for reproduction (sporulation) by the AM fungi on a particular species of root. I could go on...but I won't! Source: Bever, J. & Schultz, P. (2005) Mechanisms of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Mediation of Plant-Plant Interactions. In Dighton, J., White, J., & Oudemans, P. (eds.) The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem. USA: Taylor & Francis.

No fact today, though I have something better... ...a book! Out Feb 2016. Wiley: Urban Tree Management - Andreas Roloff ...and another! Out Dec 2015. Mycorrhizal Networks by Thomas R Horton

31/08/15. Fact #19.5. A neat little one to do with trees on page 143 of A New Tree Biology. There is a group of amoebae that inhabit both wood and the soil surrounding trees that, when viewed under the microscope, have the shape of a bat. They are aptly called vampiridae. Such amoebae digest bacteria and other minute organisms. Source: Shigo, A. (1986) A New Tree Biology. USA: Shigo and Trees Associates.

31/08/15. Fact #19. Microorganisms that cause decay in trees are not always so small - fruiting bodies may weigh over 10kg and persist for significant periods of time. For the most part however, when we refer to microorganisms, we refer to the vegetative parts, microscopic bacteria, and yeasts. Single cells of bacteria may for example be only a few microns across. A micron is a thousandth of a millimetre. A millimetre is a thousandth of a metre. This is the definition of small! If you took a bacteria cell that was 3 microns across and enlarged it to the size of a 6ft human, by comparison the human would be 700 miles tall. ...and who said the nehpilim didn't exist? Source: Shigo, A. (1986) A New Tree Biology. USA: Shigo and Trees Associates.

Is it perhaps also a case of the species not needing to 'coppice' readily? Beech is late successional, so should be entering into a landscape that is already very well established, probably relatively stable, and therefore there is less inherent risk involved with any sort of practical establishment. Beech tend to sit in the undercanopy and wait for openings before swiftly occupying space, seeding rather aggressively (even when 100+ years old), and repeating the process. Perhaps the strategy of beech is not one of needing to re-sprout or vegetatively reproduce (with any sort of abundance), which has lead to the development of thick bark and rapid abortion of dormant buds over millennia. I have attached a few sources. Effects of relative irradiance on the leaf structure of beech (2001).pdf Growth of old beech in isolated areas of mature stand (2010).pdf Height competition between Quercus petraea and Fagus sylvatica (2013).pdf

Interesting. Got a source for that at all?

Building on that, you are indeed correct that most aspirin is now artificially synthesized. And, salycylic acid does wonders to plants and trees as a mulch (pure willow mulch). It activates / induces immune response to a tree, improving 'signalling', and making the tree more staunch in defense against pathogens.

Thanks for the corrections, David. The D. quercina one I simply assumed was that, because of the fact it was an oak log. Pays to not assume, eh! The old bracket on the oak was a toss-up between oak dryad and lacquered bracket. I went for oak dryad as other old brackets of lacquered bracket haven't looked so... ugly. The morphology of the bracket would seem to be more G. resinaceum however, upon reflection.

Not so much a fact here but more of a comment. From reading Shigo's A New Tree Biology and Modern Arboriculture, it is clear how he advocated arborists and those alike to consider their actions before exercising them. One particular point I wish to pick up on here is the use of chemicals to control pests that may not be abundant, but merely 'undesired' (in a human sense). For instance, say one sprays an Ilex to rid it of P. ilicis. In doing so, yes the leaf miner is killed, though what about the parasitoids and pathogens of the insect? Their populations will suffer, too. It's important that when undertaking control methods, we consider the non-target effects also.

Found an old one from the JoA. p0145-0149.pdf

Crataegus persimilis 'Prunifolia' or Crataegus x lavallei 'Carrierei'?

30/08/15. Fact #18. Underground sewer pipes within urban areas will, particularly as they depreciate, facilitate entry of roots, via cracks, into the inner structure of the pipe, where roots can exploit the freely-available moisture (and nutrients). Such invasion by roots has lead to the development of pipes that possess, in theory, greater resistance to root intrusion, with the industry moving away from clay and concrete pipes of old to modern PVC and modern concrete pipes of today. Historically, manufacturers would have focused pipework design on ensuring pipes are impervious to incoming and outgoing water. Little to no focus was on making pipes resistant to tree roots, and where research was undertaken into resistance to root invasion the species used were grasses (Poaceae spp.) and lupines (Lupinus spp.) - not willows and poplars! Perhaps this is why, today, so many problems exist - particularly when one recognises many pipes (around 24%) are operating 'beyond' their life expectancy and are in poor (or worse) condition, within the UK. But how effective are these new pipes? Tests were thankfully more robust with these new forms of pipework, with this study's research in particlar seeing poplars (Populus x canadensis var. Robusta) planted directly above PVC and modern concrete pipework systems that were laid approximately 70cm below the surface (for reference, the groundwater table in the area was down at 1m in depth). Now for results. Put succinctly, even these new pipes were found not impervious to tree roots. Particularly at joins between two pipes and at junctions (for example, where PVC pipe met concrete pipe, or where two PVC pipes are joined together), root entry was still a common occurrence (which is no real surprise) - even where self-vulcanising (self-amalgamating) tape was wrapped around joints, roots still intruded into PVC pipes but not concrete pipes - this was thought to be due to the tape's ability to stick better to concrete than PVC. However, roots that penetrated into PVC pipes were usually only 0.1-0.3mm in diameter, whereas roots that penetrated into modern concrete pipes were up to 3mm. The study also concluded that the density of roots in the vicinity of the pipework demonstrated that leakage was not a driver in roots invading the pipework itself. Instead, condensation upon the pipework seemed to be a principal factor behind root intrusion and density upon and immediately around the inner and outer surfaces of the pipes - particularly when 12 of the 17 penetration points involved roots growing through air within the pipe; only 5 were below water level within the pipe. Concluding remarks suggest that it is almost a given that tree roots will still invade modern pipework systems, so other means of damage mitigation / postponement should be practiced, particularly around inherent weak points within the structure of pipework. These include: (1) plant trees only where soil conditions are suitable and roots need not readily invade pipes to acquire needed moisture, (2) plant appropriate species at appropriate distances away from pipes, and (3) install root barriers. Source: Ridgers, D., Rolf, K., & Stal, O. (2009) Observations of Tree Root Penetration into Modern PVC and Concrete Sewer Pipes. In Watson, G., Costello, L., Scharenbroch, B., & Gilman, E. (eds.) The Landscape Below Ground III: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. USA: International Society of Arboriculture.

Are there any articles on what to do if a tree has been struck by lightning, and how to reduce the risk of lightning strikes? I know there's this book by the ISA, and I have an article by Bartlett on lightning rods, but is there anything more extensive (such as studies into the effectiveness of such rods)?

Seen the same thing - sap runs seem to attract the wasps, as do aphids on leaves. The aspirin comment sounds rather cool, I must say.

Eh well; I lied. Only a little fact, but think it's pretty cool (albeit rather obvious when you think about it). 28/08/15. Fact #17. The benefits of organic mulching are clear, though asphalt and concrete may act as a mulch for young and newly-planted trees in city areas. Both surfaces not only protect the roots physically, but also aid with water retention and reduce potential compaction effects (thus keeping the soil nicely aerated). Source: Shigo, A. (1991) Modern Arboriculture. USA: Shigo & Trees, Associates. Obviously once secondary thickening really kicks in the concrete / asphalt is shattered apart and there are quite literally trip hazards everywhere. If you're lucky you may even be able to spot a root tapering away from the tree for many metres (I find planes, poplars and cherries are very good at this, inspecting street trees daily).

Rather tired today from work and gym, so no fact will be provided. Want to finish reading Modern Arboriculture, as well.

Thanks, David. I shall look to upturn some of the caps, in future. With the Coprinus ones on the willow, they were so small that I was hoping to let them grow a little first. Will check back on Tuesday. Here's a load more from the last few days. Been rather busy, so this is the first time I have had a chance to upload them. D. quercina on a Q. robur log: G. applanatum on an A. campestre stump: G. applanatum on a (what I suspect is) very old Q. robur stump: Ganoderma sp. (I suspect G. australe on this one as the bracket form is different from what I would expect G. applanatum to look like, though some P. igniarius may also be present in desiccated form - it may even be G. applanatum!) on a line of S. alba, slowly picking them off one-by-one (first two are already dead): Desiccated (and since crumbled) L. sulphureus on Q. robur: L. sulphureus in the crown of a Q. robur, within a wound where a branch snapped-out many moons ago: L. sulphureus on a Q. robur log: P. pomaceus on P. spinosa: What I suspect is an old P. dryadeus bracket on Q. robur: Do correct me on any I may be wrong about!

Fertilisers with high nitrogen certainly help to kill mycorrhizae within the soil, and applied at the wrong time of year can encourage growth that cannot lignify before autumn / winter. Further, fertilisers high in mineral salts encourage plasmolysis of root cells, which can injure / kill them (the non-woody roots). Guy sounds like he knows how to stress a tree! Got the first edition of that book, not the second. One day I'll upgrade...