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
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
(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
https://chrisluleyphd.com/publications/
References: get the Smith/Glaeser ones, at least!
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
(7)How do the fungi get in?
“true heart rots”
“wound heart rots”
“root and butt rots”
(8)Fungal contribution to hazard
Common Molds: fungi with a sweet tooth…
Wood-decay fungi: the real cleanup crew!
Dr. Kevin Smith, USDA-FS
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
(7)How do the fungi get in?
“true heart rots”
“wound heart rots”
“root and butt rots”
(8)Fungal contribution to hazard
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)
Brown rot: cellulose degraded; brittle fracture
Brown rot: cellulose degraded; brittle fracture
“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)
White rot: lignin degraded, cellulose remains
White rot: lignin degraded, cellulose remains
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
CODIT
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
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
(7)How do the fungi get in?
“true heart rots”
“wound heart rots”
“root and butt rots”
(8)Fungal contribution to hazard
How did
they get in?
A typical(?) situation…
510 684 4323
↑Backyard tree failed…! What to do…?
Remove the front yard tree, of course! →
510 684 4323
Goal: test this tree for wood-decay fungi, and understand how those fungi affect the chance of failure →
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
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, 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
decay fungi like company
decay fungi like company
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
(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?)
We need YOU to continue reporting failures!
Results: fungal taxa vs. obvious decay
Conks: a friendly reminder
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?)
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 -
https://chrisluleyphd.com/publications/
(6) CODIT: Shigo and Marx, Bulletin 405 USFS 1977
https://chrisluleyphd.com/publications/
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