Gonoderma applanatum - remove the conk?!?

Perhaps it might be more ethical to hold off on guessing, and say that we do not know; how can we tell them what to expect, if we have little basis for those suppositions.

There's no Rule I know of whereby we are obligated to give clients a prediction of the efficacy of treatments that are not typical, or even experimental. If a treatment's not explicitly stated in the ISA BMP's, then we have to follow the other BMP's:

Best Means Possible!

Yes the client has to buy into the uncertainty, and often their assistance in monitoring and treatment is part of the plan.

re grammatical, yes; my toes are not too tasty.
tongue.gif


wavzing.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
is not sound, grammatically or conceptually.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in glass houses....
 
Guy, I've said it before and I will say it again...you perplex me.

You have stated before that you don't bother sending samples to labs because they can be wrong...unless you carry lab equipment with you on site, I'm thinking this means you rely on your experience to formulate decisions.

The vast majority of what we do is based on extrapolated science and years of experience. We have to do that. Every tree we encounter has a different set of circumstances than any research study done in a controlled environment. Trees that are dealt with in the real world don't grow in controlled environments.

And don't even get me started on grammatical structure, Guy. You are not the one to talk....
 
Agreed Guy, it is about being honest with the people who are paying for our opinion.

Often times the unknown portion is a lot bigger than the known portion.

The confusion I read in many texts (and posts) between hazard and risk is as common here as it appears to be in the USA...and it is as problematic here as well!
 
The biggest concern with the subject tree is that it has become an Edge tree as a result of the development of the property. That being said I would suspect that, as a result of the lean, the tree was a pioneer with the adjacent alders post historical land development. The presence of the Ganoderma sp. fruiting body would indicate that the infection had occurred prior to the most recent site disturbances. It has been my experiance that when fruiting bodies associated with the subject pathogen are visible that the presence of advanced decay within the mechanical support roots and lower portion of the parent stem can be anticipated.

Recently, we completed an air-spade assisted root collar examination of a veteran Garry oak in Victoria which displayed fruiting bodies associated with Ganoderma at the root collar. The tree outwardly expressed excellent vitlality. However, the root collar exam determined that all mechanical supporting woody roots were in an advanced state of decay. A proliferation of advantageous non-woody absorbing roots were present. The tree was maintaining it's upright structure by.....? We can only summize that gravity had a role!

Cheers,
Don Bottrell, DTS
 
Hey gravity is a force to be reckoned with, eh? It holds things still as well as makes things fall.

Those adventitious roots may be advantageous for the tree in the sense of feeding it, but also provide increasing physical support as they grow.

So what happened to the Garry oak? And what is a DTS??

I just put a lighting system in a live oak tree with G applanatum that had been thrice condemned. High likelihood for successful codit. The pecan with G lucidum in the Dendro story is not winning the codit battle, yet, but the owners are fine with it being veteranized. The prop system may be part of a swingset.
 

Attachments

Although this thread seems to have lost steam 8 years ago, the question still remains: remove the conk and trace back to healthy wood? Or leave it be, i.e.- do not inflict further harm by creating a new wound?

Dendro suggested root invigoration to increase vigor so the tree can outpace the foreign growth and compartmentalize, but he did not address the fruiting body at all. I’ve got a client with a small (6’) ornamental weeping plum with a conk. There is zero risk associated with leaving the tree in place. If I could clean the tree up aesthetically, at least, I think the owner would appreciate it!
Thanks!
 
The primary benefit of removing the fruiting body is the psychological benefit to the homeowner and perhaps the practitioner.
Good to be concerned about additional wounds caused by the removal, but the tissue beneath the point of attachment is likely already dead and colonized. The problem with "tracing back to healthy wood"...if you can see the healthy wood, then you've gone too far and have made a larger wound. Might stimulate woundwood production, which is good, but not at the expense of making a larger wound.
I do get upset at foragers whanging away on chaga clinkers on birch and maple. That's more of a problem up in these parts.
 
KTSmith said:
The primary benefit of removing the fruiting body is the psychological benefit to the homeowner and perhaps the practitioner.
Good to be concerned about additional wounds caused by the removal, but the tissue beneath the point of attachment is likely already dead and colonized. The problem with "tracing back to healthy wood"...if you can see the healthy wood, then you've gone too far and have made a larger wound. Might stimulate woundwood production, which is good, but not at the expense of making a larger wound.
I do get upset at foragers whanging away on chaga clinkers on birch and maple. That's more of a problem up in these parts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confirmation, KTSmith!
 
Some folks in England hypothesize that plucking the conks will invigorate the fungus and make matters worse. Not sure about that one.

And funny to read how full of crap I was 9 years ago lol.
 
guymayor said:
Some folks in England hypothesize that plucking the conks will invigorate the fungus and make matters worse. Not sure about that one.

And funny to read how full of crap I was 9 years ago lol.
Click to expand...

Now there is an opening a mile wide!

We are all evolving my friend.
 
O and re "the question still remains: remove the conk and trace back to healthy wood? Or leave it be, i.e.- do not inflict further harm by creating a new wound"...if healthy wood is not disturbed, then a new wound is not made.
But there is the ? of semi-infected wood. I usually don't disturb the area without a good diagnostic or hygienic reason for doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom