wood decay fungi - capcamany fungi in failed wood →expect fungi on/in trees →know/recognize most...

Wood decay fungi

Igor Lać[email protected]

510 684 4323

Overview

(1) Fungi, wood-decay fungi and why

they are awesome! (like, totally!)

(2) Wood, and why it’s awesome! (like,

super-awesome!)

(3) What happens when the two

awesomenesses interact

Concepts we are covering

(3) Wood Anatomy

(4) Tree Anatomy

(1) Importance of fungi

(2) Fungal succession

(5) Fungal effects on trees

(in general)

(6) Types of “rot”

White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap


(3) Wood Anatomy

(4) Tree Anatomy




(in general)


White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap

(7)How do the fungi get in?

“true heart rots”

“wound heart rots”

“root and butt rots”

(8)Fungal contribution to hazard

References! (OR: everything good on these slides

came from someone smarter than me!)

(1) Cell wall diagrams, wood tissues, wood rot types:

Schwarze, F.W., 2008. Diagnosis and prognosis of the

development of wood decay in urban trees.

(2) Stupsi the Hedgehog:

Mattheck, C., 1999. Stupsi explains the tree.

(3) Fungal succession on plant material graph:

Dr. Kevin Smith, USDA Forest Service

(4) Nice pictures of decay fungi:

Glaeser and Smith: Decay fungi of oaks…

(5) Arborist-focused articles: Dr. Chris Luley -

https://chrisluleyphd.com/publications/

(6) CODIT: Shigo and Marx, Bulletin 405 USFS 1977


References: get the Smith/Glaeser ones, at least!


(3) Wood Anatomy

(4) Tree Anatomy




(in general)


White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap






Common Molds: fungi with a sweet tooth…

Wood-decay fungi: the real cleanup crew!

Dr. Kevin Smith, USDA-FS


(3) Wood Anatomy

(4) Tree Anatomy




(in general)


White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap






Wood-eater’s menu options:

cellulose or lignin?

Primary wall

contains mostly

lignin

Secondary wall:

contains mostly

cellulose

Wood-eater’s menu options: cellulose or lignin?

Secondary wall:

contains mostly

cellulose

Primary wall

contains lignin

and pectin (ML)

We need both to have strong wood!

Secondary wall

(cellulose) –

resists tension

Primary wall

(lignin) – resists

compression

Brown rot: cellulose degraded; brittle fracture

“Holes in cell

walls”

Failure mode:

brittle fracture

(like breaking

a ceramic cup)


“Holes in cell

walls”

Failure mode:

brittle fracture

(like breaking

a ceramic cup)

White rot: lignin degraded, cellulose remains

Cells “come

unglued…”

Failure:

ductile break

(stringy edges

left)


Cells “come

unglued…”

Failure:

ductile break

(stringy edges

left)

But wood is “arranged” to make a tree – so, not all

wood is the same!

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0001302.pub2

Tissues in a tree

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0001302.pub2

Sapwood & Heartwood

But wood is “arranged” to make a tree – so, not all

wood is the same!

Heart rot

What to look for:

Body language of trees – may indicate heart rot

Sap rot!

Strength loss much greater with saprot!

Canker rot


(3) Wood Anatomy

(4) Tree Anatomy




(in general)


White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap






How did

they get in?

A typical(?) situation…

[email protected]

510 684 4323

↑Backyard tree failed…! What to do…?

Remove the front yard tree, of course! →

[email protected]

510 684 4323

Goal: test this tree for wood-decay fungi, and understand how those fungi affect the chance of failure →

[email protected]

510 684 4323

Goals

Study question: which species of fungi are present

in failed wood, and how often are they found?

Immediate goal: combining failure reporting with

the fungal assay

Ultimate goal:

enabling arborists

to consider fungal

presence within

risk assessment

[email protected]

510 684 4323

WTFRP: ucanr.edu/sites/treefail

Western Chapter Tree Failure Report Program

The O F F

Online Failure Form

Now available!

Back to the study: Steps

1 Sampling the failed trees

1a Sampling sound wood (control samples!)

2 Testing the wood for fungal DNA

3 Data summary and guidelines

Sampling

Either:

Sample sound -

rotten

interface

take 4 samples

(2) Send the

wood (and conk)

samples to the

Garbelotto Lab

in the large

Priority Mail pack

Possible

Test

Results:

Nothing

one of the 21

species

Some other

fungus

Results

Over 350 sample packets sent out

108 samples received

88 samples processed

Results: tree taxa

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1

0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9

0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8

0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.7

0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.6

0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5

0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4

0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3

0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

23 % Oaks

12% Eucalypts

37% Other 95 genera

9 % cypress

17 % Pines

2 % Redwoods

Preliminary results: failure location

The most surprising result…

Top 5 fungi

Results: where in the tree are our fungi

Results: who are they, anyway…

From:

Glaeser &

Smith, 2013

Results: who are they, anyway…

From:

Glaeser &

Smith, 2010

Preliminary results: control samples tree type

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1

0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9

0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8

0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.7

0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.6

0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5

0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4

0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3

0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

64 % Broadleaf

35 % Conifer

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1

0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9

0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8

0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.7

0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.6

0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5

0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4

0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3

0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

45 % Broadleaf

55 % Conifer

The less-surprising outcome for control samples

Fungi Fungus in control samples

Fungi Fungus in control samples

From:

Glaeser &

Smith, 2010

From:

Gary

Emberger,

2008

Discussion

(1) The fungal species and the tree

Do we believe the DNA results?

Are the fungal characters of any importance?

Do the fungi co-occur? (and do we care?)

(2) Visible decay, conks

Just a quick thought on what we found

(3) Where do we go from here?

Still processing control samples – stay tuned

Continue the study? ($120/sample?)

I think the results are real:

fungi are present in failed wood, but not in control samples

Do the characters of our fungi “make sense”

Wood Anatomy

Tree Anatomy

Types of “rot”

White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap

We need both to have strong wood!

Secondary wall

(cellulose) –

resists tension

Primary wall

(lignin) – resists

compression

Igor’s

favorites

The oddballs… (Stereum, Hericium)

characters of our fungi “make sense”

Types of “rot”

White Brown Soft

Canker Heart Sap

decay fungi like company

Parameter Us Others…

Fungal

frequency

87/88 11/11

(Parfitt 2010)

10/9

(Schmidt 2012)

Fungal

species

16 11 (Parfitt 2010)

7 (Schmidt 2012)

Fungal frequency/composition compared with refs

Armillaria

Fomitiporia

Fuscoporia

Ganoderma

Hericium

Inonotus

Laetiporus

Oxyporus

Perenniporia

Phellinus

Pleurotus

PseudoInonotus

Sarcocladium

Schizophyllum

Stereum

Trametes

Discussion










We need YOU to continue reporting failures!

Results: fungal taxa vs. obvious decay

Conks: a friendly reminder

Discussion










We need YOU to continue reporting failures!

About conks

→ Indicate a problem (at least a

pinpoint without sound wood)

→Leave them! useful as a

reminder or a warning

Conclusion results in practice

Many fungi

in failed wood

→ expect fungi on/in trees

→know/recognize most common

→expect fungi in odd locations

→natural, cannot be eradicated

Saprots common in

failed wood

→ what this means is unclear,

but it’s not surprising…

More brown rot

than I expected

→ Recognize Laetiporus, and

potential for brittle fracture

References!

(1) Cell wall diagrams, wood tissues, wood rot types:

Schwarze, F.W., 2008. Diagnosis and prognosis of the

development of wood decay in urban trees.

(2) Stupsi the Hedgehog:

Mattheck, C., 1999. Stupsi explains the tree.

(3) Fungal succession on plant material graph:

Dr. Kevin Smith, USDA Forest Service

(4) Nice pictures of decay fungi:

Glaeser and Smith: Decay fungi of oaks…

(5) Arborist-focused articles: Dr. Chris Luley -


(6) CODIT: Shigo and Marx, Bulletin 405 USFS 1977


To all the arborists who sent in samples!

To the research team:

M. Garbelotto, L. Costello, K. Jones, D. Schmidt

To the Britton Fund

To you, my favorite audience!

Thank you! (and please support the Britton Fund!)

Igor LaćanUniversity of California, Cooperative Extension

[email protected] 684 4323

wood decay fungi - capcamany fungi in failed wood →expect fungi on/in trees →know/recognize most...

Documents