# What do you do with conks?



## ORclimber (Jul 21, 2004)

Should conks be removed from trees so they don't infect surrounding trees?

If conks are removed should the tree be labeled to let others know about the trees potential condition?


----------



## ORclimber (Jul 21, 2004)

Here's a pic of 2 conks on a maple and one on the ground that looks the same off of a hazelnut 75' away. Haven't Id'd them yet. The maple obviously has issues, but the hazelnut looked ok aside from the conk. Of course the inside was a mess.


----------



## jimmyq (Jul 21, 2004)

so I am under the impression that a conk is usually a sign of internal decay, if we remove the conk are we just removing the indicator of decay and not accomplishing much else?


----------



## rumination (Jul 21, 2004)

I think ORClimber is asking whether or not the conks will produce spores that could potentially infect other trees, and if so is it worth removing them, or is the ambient amount of fungal spores so high that there is no point. I'm interested in knowing the answer to that question myself. 

My uneducated guess is that there's not much point because there's fungal spores everywhere, and the removal of a few conks here and there won't make much of a difference.


----------



## jimmyq (Jul 21, 2004)

Rumination... I agree, but, my thoughts are that the conks are indicators of decay, not the primary decay vectors. Do the conks start decay or do they show the signs that decay is present? Spores are prevalent in most places in my opinion and they land and produce gametophytes where situations present themselves that are favorable, ie. decaying wood. 

just my .02


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Jul 21, 2004)

When I was a kid, a few members of my family were out for a walk in the woods and found a big conk. We broke it off and did some artwork on the bottom with a stick and then we all signed it. 
It got brought home and stuck in a closet where it still sits preserved perfectly. It's around 40 years old now and pretty fun to take a look at now and again.
We now have a second one, again collected on a family walk, with the next gereration, only about 6 years old.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 21, 2004)

Dan I agree but once a bad fungus is ID'd the conks should be removed and buried. as it says in your Fungal Strategies book, those things can pump out Billions of spores. That changes the ambient infectious level quite a bit.

Mike if your conk was off a locust they're called artist's conks. I harvest them and my wife etches on them. I have one on top of my monitor with our initials on it. I know, aaaaaaawwwww.


----------



## wiley_p (Jul 24, 2004)

The false tinder fungus, the latin name escapes me, anyway that fruiting body has psychoactive qualities. It was/is used by several of the West Cook Inlet Athabascans in AK. Sounds better than burying them hey?


----------



## Froggy (Jul 24, 2004)

So to my understanding. You should get rid of the conk and observe the tree the conk or conks were on. To see if it will survive or if it should be removed. Or does that have to do with the location of the tree and how many other trees are infected?


----------



## jkrueger (Jul 24, 2004)

My biology, remembered, and I may be wrong. The conk is NOT the problem. They will only appear where there is rot. When found on truncks that appear to be OK, it is a signal for what is inside. An alerting mechanism is wanted, not gotten rid of. They do not cause the trees issue.

Jack


----------



## rumination (Jul 24, 2004)

Jack,

While the conks are indicators of decay within the tree, they are also the fruiting body of the fungus. They spread millions of spores that will eventually settle and could possibly start decay in other nearby trees. Thus, the question is: will disposing of the conks before they can drop their spores help to reduce the chances of decay in other nearby trees or is the ambient level of different fungus so high that it won't make a difference? This would require a detailed knowledge of the life cycle of the fungus in question, so that you would know whether or not the conk had released its spores already, or if it was a perennial conk. I'm still unsure as to the correct answer to these questions.


----------



## jkrueger (Jul 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rumination _
> *Jack,
> 
> While the conks are indicators of decay within the tree, they are also the fruiting body of the fungus. They spread millions of spores that will eventually settle and could possibly start decay in other nearby trees. Thus, the question is: will disposing of the conks before they can drop their spores help to reduce the chances of decay in other nearby trees or is the ambient level of different fungus so high that it won't make a difference? I'm still unsure as to the correct answer to this question. *



I've never seen them on heathy trees, or an area, multiple trees, with many of them. I'll check more on this.
Thanks,
Jack


----------



## rumination (Jul 24, 2004)

> That's like suggesting that arresting a prostitute from one street corner will reduce prostitution in the city, and leaving the prostitute on the corner will lead to more spreading of VD.




Rocky, earlier in the thread I said much the same thing as you just did. And it still does seem to make good sense. However, others with more experience than I disagreed, and I don't really know enough to say one way or the other, so I'll just be wishy washy until I do some more research. :angel:


----------



## geofore (Jul 24, 2004)

*conk/locust*

The artist conk on locust trees were used years ago to carry fire. When dried out they can smolder for days if wrapped in large leaves. Kids would carry them around on the 4th of July to light fireworks, no need to carry matches, a conk would smolder all day. The common name for it was punk as it indicated the tree you found it on was punky inside. It grows on beech trees also but if you see it on locust it is a good indication the tree has an inch or two of good wood on the outside edge and the interior of the trunk is mush. So even if the tree has lots of green branches above the conk beware it is a dangerous tree to be climbing or felling. The larger the conk the more indication of dead wood/mush inside. I've had locust snap in half at or near the conks when pulling them over or just felling them. If you knock a conk off, they will grow back. It takes some years for them to get big again but they do grow back because you only removed the fruiting body not the little filiment/thread like feeding system (like roots) that will grow another fruiting body. The white under side will turn tan when it is time to drop spores and a new white layer will grow on in the spring.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 25, 2004)

There is no reason to leave them on. Even healthy trees have small infection courts from included bark etc. Do you know how small those spores are? There is no reason to leave them on, unless you are afraid someone will climb a rotten tree. Then, put a red X on it or something. Many locusts wiht them will stand a long time, so you should look into their structure further before judging.


----------



## ORclimber (Jul 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Guy Meilleur _
> * Do you know how small those spores are? *



From A New Tree Biology p. 135 "A crack on a wound smaller than the eye could see would be a gigantic cavern for these spores"


----------



## ORclimber (Jul 25, 2004)

It seems like leaving a point source for spores could be a bad idea. Here's a quote from Tatter's Diseases of Shade Trees in the Ganoderma section. "Windblown spores are produced in large numbers by the fruiting bodies. These spores can contact wounds near the base of a healthy tree and create infections...."

But, removing conks takes a way a useful diagnostic tool for the observant. From Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas "Identification of the fruiting body is important because decay fungi have different abilities to decay wood, and attack different parts of the tree. The type of fungi may also indicate the degree of structural integrity. For example, the presence of a single Fomes officinalis fruiting body indicates that most of the heartwood has been decayed, whereas a single Fomes pini fruiting body indicates decay may extend only a few feet above and below the conk."

I dunno what to do, good thing tree killin' is in high demand.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Jul 25, 2004)

RockJSquirrel...

Don't you think they are for conking people on the head?

CONK__CONK !!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ORclimber _
> * But, removing conks takes a way a useful diagnostic tool for the observant. *


Good point, but they do grow back. Or, you could remove all but the smallest one. Or, if the spores are emitted from the underside, cut the bottom half of it off and leave the top half for ID.

Lots of other options besides leaving billions of spores to disseminate. If it's a tree you're paid to help, removing them all, experimentally drenching the wood (not bark) with 10% bleach or antifreeze, drenching the soil with Subdue or Alliette, and inoculating the soil outside the drenched area with good micros is a more aggressive tactic.

O and MD, since they are not shed like apples, the conkingonthehead scenario seems unlikely...


----------



## rumination (Jul 26, 2004)

OK Guy, I can see where you're coming from in the urban environment. I guess because I work in a forest that is the context in which I was thinking. In the urban environment rotting tree/conk density is fairly low so the removal of even one large conk might make a difference. In the forest, however, it would just be a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rumination _
> * In the forest, however, it would just be a drop in the bucket. *


Every drop counts.


----------



## glens (Jul 26, 2004)

clear-cutting conks?


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 26, 2004)

Once you've ID'd em to be evil--laetiporus ganoderma etc--, yeah, break off and bury every one you see, in the course of your work. Not that it makes sense to try and rid every forest of them, but ones you run across in urban work, yeah it's worth the time imo. 

And Leon you are in an urban forest if I recall, right? Spores from your trees waft all over Honolulu.


----------



## rumination (Jul 26, 2004)

You are correct Guy. Honolulu is backed up by miles of forest reserve. The tradewinds probably blow tens of trillions of fungus spores into the city every day. Which is why I still think my taking the time to bury a few conks here and there is pretty pointless.:angel:


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jul 26, 2004)

Maybe in your case that's so. But if you were in the middle of town instead of on the edge...

What might be fun for you and visitors would be to whack off the conks, coat em with lacquer, label them and put them on display. I've seen this done at other pub gdns.  They are after all botanical specimens; that way you're putting the spores out of circulation and expanding the offering to the public.

May mean a raise in stature too; Curator of the Conks!:blob1:


----------



## rumination (Jul 26, 2004)

Actually, there are some quite beautiful shelf fungus that grow in the forest here that artists collect to make jewelry out of. Really nice stuff.

As far as Curator of Conks...well I already get the mushroom treatment: they keep me in the dark and feed me bull$hit.


----------



## jamie (Jul 27, 2004)

*fruits*

leave them on, 

ganoderma rots the roots, so removing the fruiting body / bracket removes the positive id......

spores are everywhere, to remove the chance of spores getting into the atmosphere you would have to watch the tree 24/7....

species such as honey fungus grow via 'bootlaces' (the mycelium part of teh fnus) through the soil

correct me if any of this is wrong

if its a homeowner, ID the fungus and tell them, then if for asethetic reasons remove it but dont expect to eradicate the fungus

jamie


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Aug 2, 2004)

*Fungal Freaks!!*

See a hazard on this tree?? It _was_ still alive when I showed up. Amazingly healthy looking crown for this kind of stuff on it. And not just a little.

No rigging on this damaged thing. It was all bombing.


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Aug 2, 2004)

Here is a pic with a (kick A$$) biner for size ref.


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Aug 2, 2004)

And my screen saver pick for the week. Lookin' up!!

Cool thing is we just left a 25ft stick for wildlife habitat since the hazard was removed. (tree could no longer hit nearby soccer field.)


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Aug 2, 2004)

Beautiful pictures. Did you ID that bright white fungus?

Love the idea of leaving habitat after reducing hazard.


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Aug 2, 2004)

Actually, I was hoping you knew could do my homework for me.

I was just guessing one of those ganoderma (sp?) that was discussed earlier.

We call the tall stumps (poles) Spechtbaum (sp?) - woodpecker tree. They really make their homes in them. Speaking of woodpeckers, a woodpecker nest in a competition tree was the reason they postponed the German TCC until Sept.


----------



## Sylvatica (Aug 3, 2004)

When I was studying Japanese garden design, I met a woman who told me a very old Japanese saying, which was something like - "If your trees are rotting, go fix your fence posts." 

Well, I didn't get it right away. She explained that the ancient logic was to remove the rotten posts, thereby reducing the source of fruiting fungal pathogens taking up residence on your property.

Old folk remedy, or sound science?

Removing fruiting bodies does seem a bit like shoveling against the tide if the surrounding area is a vast fungal playground such a forest. But if the conk is near high value trees, visibly suceptible or not, then it would be very tempting to make an effort to remove any sporulating mass.

I make an effort to reduce carryover inoculum by removing infected leaf litter when required, so why not a conk, another localized inoculum source. At worst, wouldn't it just be a minor waste of time?


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Aug 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sylvatica _
> * But if the conk is near high value trees, visibly suceptible or not, then it would be very tempting to make an effort to remove any sporulating mass.
> 
> I make an effort to reduce carryover inoculum by removing infected leaf litter when required, so why not a conk, another localized inoculum source. At worst, wouldn't it just be a minor waste of time? *



While your at it, why don't you pee in the ocean and wait for it to rise?

Here's a pretty something or other:


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Oct 7, 2004)

*Fungi pic*

Just thought I would add another. Feel free to ID it for me


----------



## MasterBlaster (Oct 7, 2004)

Nice pic!


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Oct 7, 2004)

again


----------



## che (Oct 7, 2004)

This tree split a year or two ago. I drove by it yesterday and found all these. Today I brought my camera.


----------



## che (Oct 7, 2004)

Here's a closer view. I'm not sure how clear it is...but it has grow grown AROUND leaves that were laying on it. They, and other debris, had been knocked out of what looks to be a racoon's nest further up into the big split. Tells me this stuff grows very quickly.


----------



## che (Oct 7, 2004)

Here is the other part of the tree that split off and fell down over a large 'sink hole'. (It was a two 'man' job trying to repair a fence on the edge.) It also has this fungus.


----------



## che (Oct 7, 2004)

'bout squished this guy, trying to steady my hand on a t-post.


----------



## Treeman14 (Oct 7, 2004)

I like them sauteed in butter, with a bit of white wine, some garlic, and a touch of onion.


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

Hey
I think that knocking off the conks and fungal fruiting bodies is just masking the real issue. Most conks or baidiocarps are the fruiting stucture of trunk or root rot They can live for up to 10 years depending on the region and dont start until sometimes 10 years after infection. So with that said a large conk could mean up to 20 years of decay action! Trunk or root doesn't matter are you going to risk leaving that tree standing. Once you have seen it you are now liable if you try and mask the situation by knockin them off. I would make sure you inform and document and then leave those fruiting bodies alone. Also I don't understand burying because the spores only come out if the position of the basidocarp is not altered. The spores fall out of vertical tubes on the under side. They must be vertical or they can't fall out.
So bustin off would suffice on the stopping the spread of spores. I.D of the fruiting stucture is critical to understand what type of rot is going on. They tell you important things like if there is a ton of them it is called panic frutifaction and it means it is running out of solid wood to feed on  . Also conks only grow parallel to the ground so if you see one that is on any other angle to the ground it means the tree is starting to lean over. Amazing stuff if you know what to look for and very important to us in quoting a possible removal
Take Care
Later
John


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Mike Maas _
> *While your at it, why don't you pee in the ocean and wait for it to rise?
> 
> Here's a pretty something or other: *



That is called Climacodon and it is a heartwood rotting fungus. It usually occurs in a frost crack


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

*Re: Fungal Freaks!!*



> _Originally posted by Nathan Wreyford _
> *See a hazard on this tree?? It was still alive when I showed up. Amazingly healthy looking crown for this kind of stuff on it. And not just a little.
> 
> No rigging on this damaged thing. It was all bombing. *



This one is called Red Belt Fungus and is an aggresive heart rot fungus and should be treated very carefully when considering the removal tactics of such a tree


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

*Re: Fungi pic*



> _Originally posted by Nathan Wreyford _
> *Just thought I would add another. Feel free to ID it for me *



This looks like sulphar fungus another heart rot fungus. It doesn't show up for years so be carefull of this one


----------



## ORclimber (Oct 8, 2004)

John,

Can you recommend any good sources for conk ID?


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ORclimber _
> *John,
> 
> Can you recommend any good sources for conk ID? *



Sure
For ID try Diseases of Trees and Shrubs by Sinclair,Lyon and Johnson
If you want to understand them a little better try a book by Claus Matteck called Manual of Wood Decays in Trees
It is a light read but good info and also some ID pictures
Take Care
Later
John


----------



## ORclimber (Oct 8, 2004)

Thanks. I'll look into Matheck's book, already have the other. 

Tree Diseases of British Columbia, and Diseases of Populus of British Columbia have good stuff too. Free from the Canadian Gov't. Directed at Forestry though.


----------



## jimmyq (Oct 8, 2004)

book links:
http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/FM...&CatalogNumber=4633&-script=Web_English&-find

interesting web resource:
http://www.pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/diseases/CTD/index_e.html


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Oct 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by John Stewart _
> * If you want to understand them a little better try a book by Claus Matteck called Manual of Wood Decays in Trees
> It is a light read but good info and also some ID pictures
> *


Mattheck was third author on the Fungal Strategies book; most of his work is chapter 2 (you can see the hedgehog). Schwarze is 80% of the book, and Julia Engels more than Mattheck.

I need to buy that Manual you're talking about...but I doubt it approaches 
Schwarze's research or insights.


----------



## John Stewart (Oct 8, 2004)

Hey Guy
You are correct that Claus had help!
The authors were K. Weber and C. Mattheck
Ya you always pick up something new in Claus's books. I do consider his books like Stupsi and Pauli the Bear light reads do too their ease of comprehension on such advanced topics. The pictures help a lot so maybe that is why I say light!
Don't you think that he does a dis service by his choice of style? For years I thought Stupsi was a kids book about trees!
Later
John


----------



## NickfromWI (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ORclimber _
> *John,
> 
> Can you recommend any good sources for conk ID? *



Good sources? I found mine already. I'll just send John pictures of the conk. He's pretty good so far (not that I was checking his work).

love
nick


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Oct 9, 2004)

It's interesting to see this thread rise back from the ashes. So, what the heck...

I just started another album "Forest Floor" where I put some photos, and lately, many are photos of mushrooms and conks.

Mt. St Helens and some lava tree molds are down the album a little ways.

Forest Floor & Pacific NW album 

This latest time in the woods finally brought me to the conclusion that the important cliche is not that "trees are a renewable resource" but that "forests are not a renewable resource" - not in a single lifetime anyhow


----------

