# Multiple wall 4 failures



## outofmytree (Aug 3, 2009)

This picture is a cross section from a Schinus molle removal we did a few weeks back. This is the best example I have seen of repeat wall 4 failure. The rotten wood smelled a lot like rotten meat. Similar bacterial activity perhaps?







You can see one of the many burls(?) in the top left hand corner of the photograph. I forgot to take any good photo's pre removal so all I have is a couple of pictures from my phone but this tree had numerous tumour like lumps all over the bark. When we dissected them there was no obvious evidence of why they started but I am sure someone wiser than I will have an idea.

You guys think you have it tough, my crew always seem to by lying down on the job!






It was this same day/night job where they asked for helmets with lights on em! Damn cheeky kids if you ask me!


----------



## Metals406 (Aug 3, 2009)

Hahaha, you could use that picture for new hires, "If you don't work hard, I club you over the head, like this guy." LOL

You fellas sure do have pretty wood down there. . . I don't think I've seen ugly grained wood posted on here from AU yet!?


----------



## Bermie (Aug 3, 2009)

Great picture!

I find this interesting in that over here Schinus terebinthifolius often does something that looks very similar...very poor compartmentalization accompanied by foul smelling rot.

As for the lumps, S. terebinth... very often pops out 'phloem lumps' that sit for a while then sprout new shoots and leaves, adventitious buds responding to stress perhaps????
S.t. also has that pinky cast to the wood, but is very sappy round the edges, has an acrid smell and can make you break out in a rash...


----------



## treeseer (Aug 3, 2009)

Very little strength lost; in the safety zone by the formulas.

any idea of a timeline with that infection?


----------



## Boa07 (Aug 4, 2009)

I strongly suspect what you are looking at in the dark lines through the cross section of the stem are demarcation lines from competing fungi.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 4, 2009)

Bermie said:


> Great picture!
> 
> I find this interesting in that over here Schinus terebinthifolius often does something that looks very similar...very poor compartmentalization accompanied by foul smelling rot.
> 
> ...



Teribinthifolia is the tree we love to hate. Nasty habit of growing like a giant bowl of spaghetti that you have to cut into foot long pieces to get into a chipper. Also is the only tree I have ever chipped that made me sneeze untill my nose bled.....


----------



## smokechase II (Aug 4, 2009)

*Rotten wood smell*

We can see that the smell of the rot got to the sawyer.

Cuttin' off the holding wood as long as the bar, (after miss-matching the face cuts), wouldn't have happened otherwise, of course.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 4, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Very little strength lost; in the safety zone by the formulas.
> 
> any idea of a timeline with that infection?



The tree was known to be between 35 and 45 years old. The original wound you see there was at least 10 years old possibly as much as 20 years old. There were multiple decay sites up the trunk which appeared to be as a result of poor compartmentalization post pruning. 

I agree there was no structural need to remove the tree this job was to allow a building extension. I made the section cuts at first for ease of hauling and as the pattern became more evident I cut to show the best example of the various failures I could find.



> I strongly suspect what you are looking at in the dark lines through the cross section of the stem are demarcation lines from competing fungi.



I honestly don't know Boa. I posted this half expecting to be told it was something completely different. I looked long and hard at the various cross sections in Alex Shigos "A New Tree Biology" showing wall 4 and there seemed to be many similarities between his photo's and this one. 

This was the 1st Schinus molle I had ever removed so I have no reference point to gauge whether this extensive decay is common or indeed how it is caused other than what seemed to be obvious failure at various wound sites.

Do you think the dark lines are all borders seperating different fungi or are some caused by something else?

Is wall 4 failure usually less obvious in this species?

I "think" I get CODIT but then I thought I understood women untill I got married....:greenchainsaw:


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 4, 2009)

smokechase II said:


> We can see that the smell of the rot got to the sawyer.
> 
> Cuttin' off the holding wood as long as the bar, (after miss-matching the face cuts), wouldn't have happened otherwise, of course.



Yeah not my best day out. In my defense it was a Saturday and my 660 was in the shop. I did this tree which measured 1600mm at base with my 440 equipped with the standard bar.... It was very ugly I can tell ya....


----------



## Boa07 (Aug 4, 2009)

> I honestly don't know Boa. I posted this half expecting to be told it was something completely different.






> Do you think the dark lines are all borders seperating different fungi or are some caused by something else?



I THINK the dark lines are seperating different fungi but the 'difference' between them can be as subtle as clonal varieties...however I don't KNOW this for a fact, 




> Is wall 4 failure usually less obvious in this species?



I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect the formation of the barrier zone in this species just like other tree species...since it is formed by the activity of the cambium has a regular course like the growth rings.



> I looked long and hard at the various cross sections in Alex Shigos "A New Tree Biology" showing wall 4 and there seemed to be many similarities between his photo's and this one.



Yes I think I know the photo you're talking about....CODIT is a wonderful model that can be a key into the complex world of internal cellular biology within the tree...at the macroscopic level, however as Alex Shigo himself warned it is but a model and the reality that exists within any tree can be far more complex and confusing to the observer.

I think much can be gained through reading the works of Boddy and Rayner, Schwarze and Engels in developing a more complete understanding of what is potentially happening in the trees that you dissect as you remove them.


----------



## treevet (Aug 4, 2009)

Boa07 said:


> I think much can be gained through reading the works of Boddy and Rayner, Schwarze and Engels in developing a more complete understanding of what is potentially happening in the trees that you dissect as you remove them.



I think much more can be learned through the works of Dr. Shigo than the aforementioned CODIT model. I can say with a great degree of certainty that the above authors were all directly influenced by his works and they should not be understated or condescended to ("more complete") in reference.

I am gonna bite if no one else will (and my guess is this bite is why the thread was started)..... Outtamytree.....where is it that you perceive the breach/es of Wall 4 occur in your evidence?


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 5, 2009)

Thanks for the input guys.

Boa I asked you that question because you are geographically closer to me. More reading and dissecting sounds like a good plan.

TV if this sounded like a "trick" post I apologise. What I was posting was more an assertation by a novice arborist in a peer reviewed enviroment. I could have asked "is this wall4 failure?" but that doesnt take any guts.

What I assume to be evidence of failure is the various dark lines, some of which matched the position of growth rings precisely. Having Boa suggest these to be lines of demarcation between competing fungi makes a lot of sense too. 

Thats what I love about this trade. There is so much to learn. I hunger for knowledge. Feed me oh wise ones. 

:newbie:


----------



## Boa07 (Aug 5, 2009)

Dave you are absolutely right that there is a great deal more to Alex Shigo than CODIT it was not my intention to suggest otherwise....

You and I have had this discussion before elsewhere and I will repeat (albeit paraphrased) what I said then...

Based on his presentations in Melbourne and Sydney I would expect very short shrift from Dr Shigo should anyone suggest that study, examination and expansion of our understanding of tree biology stop in the 1980's with his or anyone else's publications.

The ongoing discussion about the limitations of CODIT was active whilst Alex Shigo was alive and he was part of that discussion, I have never read anything from his hand that suggests he felt the input of microscopy work by the aforementioned authors was anything but beneficial.

CODIT always was and continues to be a simplified model of the process that can occur within a tree, as physical and chemical changes are commenced to limit the the spread of dysfunction within wood tissues.

To be able to understand what is happening in any specific instance of colonisation of wood tissues by wood decay fungi it is absolutely necessary to have a grasp of the interaction between fungi and tree at a microscopic inter-cellular level, the work undertaken by the mentioned authors are a very sound starting point to develop just such an understanding.


----------



## Ekka (Aug 5, 2009)

Barrier zones, reactions zones and wall4 held solid.


----------



## treevet (Aug 5, 2009)

Boa07 said:


> Dave you are absolutely right that there is a great deal more to Alex Shigo than CODIT it was not my intention to suggest otherwise....
> 
> You and I have had this discussion before elsewhere and I will repeat (albeit paraphrased) what I said then...
> 
> ...



I remember our previous discussion as plain as day Sean. I also feel obligated to, in my insignificant way, go to my grave protecting his legacy as I am in his debt forever. Sorry for the over reaction but that's all I got.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Aug 5, 2009)

Structually, the defect makes much less differance if not on a commonally leveraged axis; like on the lean side or directly opposite. And, the tree tries to compensate even for that. Now this is speaking to the 1st picture; structually speaking the 2nd seems that the infection has spread, giving way to total collapse; the only thing missing from that mound is to be pushing up daisys!


----------



## treevet (Aug 5, 2009)

Ekka said:


> Barrier zones, reactions zones and wall4 held solid.



I agree completely Eric. The only case that could be made is below the marked picture....





Looking at the wound at the top of the picture that may have been caused by co dom. buttresses (may not have as well) it occurred in growth increment (A). It instigated the wound wood that Ram's Horned. The infection in the wound wood on both sides may also have been caused by pinching, in this case of the rolling wound wood (may also have not). 

This breach of Wall 4, between wood formed prior to wounding and wood formed after the injury appears to have been caused, again, by injury and thus IMHO does not constitute a failure of Wall 4 in that it was not caused directly by pathogens but rather by injury. (ARROWS)

In either scenario a new Wall 4 was formed and the barrier zone was shifted.

This begs the question.....Does Wall 4 ("limits the spread of infection") have to collapse completely and give an opening "outta" the tree to constitute a failure or just shift? 

Another question....Do pathogens have to delignify/decay wood to constitute a Wall 4 failure.....or is discoloration/cell death the impasse of failure? My guess is the latter.


----------



## Boa07 (Aug 5, 2009)

> I remember our previous discussion as plain as day Sean. I also feel obligated to, in my insignificant way, go to my grave protecting his legacy as I am in his debt forever. Sorry for the over reaction but that's all I got.



I very much hope you know that I respect your far greater knowledge and understanding of Shigo's works than my own, and I do not consider your position an over reaction, I greatly regret never had the opportunity to talk with him one to one, his work, his depth of understanding and his passion is what drew me into Arboriculture


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't know if this helps but the tree had at least half a dozen similar wounds with the same lines within lines. 

Using my admittedly limited understanding of CODIT I called this photograph "multiple wall4 failures" because it seemed to me that the tree resisted decay but that, in a few locations, the resistance was insufficient to the task. 

TV the rams horning was evident on at least two other wounds. 

Treespyder I didnt understand what you posted. Could you try again?

Ekka you were too brief for me. Do you mean that there was no breach or that the breaches were insignificant to the tree? More detail would really help as this is a subject which causes me a headache.

I have a found a couple more pictures which may help but we are struggling with bluetooth problems. I will add them as soon as my tech support (teenage child) sorts out the issues.


----------



## treevet (Aug 5, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> .
> 
> Using my admittedly limited understanding of CODIT I called this photograph "multiple wall4 failures" because it seemed to me that the tree resisted decay but that, in a few locations, the resistance was insufficient to the task.



that is why I challenged you to identify them



> TV the rams horning was evident on at least two other wounds.



I used this as an obvious example of what some (not me) might consider a Wall 4 failure.

I would deem this a breach (abiotic) of Wall 4 instead I suppose.


----------



## Ekka (Aug 5, 2009)

Dave, where you have marked up your picture with "A" I think was existing at time of injury.

The other two arrows further up has grown after wounding, we have established clearly that where there is no wound wood (differentiated callus wood) there is no wall4, that was very conclusive even by the biggest proponents of wall4 present at time of wounding proponents.

The wound progressed (as expected) to the centre of the tree (pith) and decayed from inside out where once again we tested that wall4 wont initiate when the decay comes from inside migrating outside as the cells which differentiate to callus are not being affected and not triggering a wall4 response. This is why often we have hollow tube (cylinders) for trees and as the next growth ring comes the last one left behind succumbs to decay. The decay resistant properties are strongest in the sapwood, also as the tree grows and the heartwood is decaying at the same rate as the growth rate (almost ring for ring) the tree is unable to store away anything into that heartwood which likely means the tree is now carrying more phenolic compounds in it's sapwood making it resist decay stronger than before.

The reason why barrier zones tend to favour growth rings should be clear to most people who have half a clue about tree biology. 

When I need my lawn mowed I call Jims, when I need my trees done I call a qualified arborist who researched and studied. 

Consumers choose your tree man carefully, we are far from being all the same.


----------



## treevet (Aug 5, 2009)

I think I will stick with the growth increment I noted as "time of wounding" due to distortion of growth increments by woundwood as the indicator.

Eric, is what you are telling us is that in your opinion the new growth increment IS Wall 4? I think you used to think Wall 4 was callus until I pointed out the cylinder of hollow wood we are all familiar with (in completely hollow trees with strong vitality) existed, indicating that MORE than callus/woundwood was protected.

If this is so I am going to disagree with this opinion also. My assertion is that this protection zone is BETWEEN the prior-to-injury wood and wood after the wound and made up of chemicals that come from stored energy reserves, starch, oil, in living wood cells. These chemicals are phenol based and can be non existent due to loss of storage so repeated Wall 4 failures can occur until the tree dies or breaks off (not the fact that only the current growth increment is Wall 4).

The barrier zone is a tissue that has a great amount of axial paranchyma, few conducting elements, low amounts of lignin, and in some species, suberin in the cells. The cambium forms cells that differentiate to form this Wall 4.
(excerpted from NTB, pg. pg. 420)

Large barrier zones can form (but they can be neg. in closing off storage space). The system is based on communication and response to information.

"Wounding experiments have shown that the symplast regulates the activities of the vascular cambium by sending it messages. When trees were wounded with drill bits and later dissected, it was observed that the cambium need not be touched to respond. A barrier zone of specialized cells was formed by the cambium in response to injured cells elsewhere in the symplast. (!!!!!)

These results are significant because they show that the cambium can receive messages from the symplast. This process has great survival value. If a tree is in trouble because of injury or infection, the cambium responds even if the problem has occurred elsewhere in the tree. This explains how barrier zones can form far in advance of injured tissue and demonstrates that survival in trees depends on the communication of new information".

Excerpted from "The Nature of Tree Care", Conversations with Alex Shigo, Jack Phillips and Alex L. Shigo, (2008) Pg. 4


----------



## Ekka (Aug 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> I think you used to think Wall 4 was callus until I pointed out the cylinder of hollow wood



If that's the case please reference your "pointing out", there's a long thread unfinished on this very topic I know of elsewhere. 



treevet said:


> My assertion is that this protection zone is BETWEEN the prior-to-injury wood and wood after the wound and made up of chemicals that come from stored energy reserves, starch, oil, in living wood cells. These chemicals are phenol based and can be non existent due to loss of storage so repeated Wall 4 failures can occur until the tree dies or breaks off (not the fact that only the current growth increment is Wall 4).
> 
> The barrier zone is a tissue that has a great amount of axial paranchyma, few conducting elements, low amounts of lignin, and in some species, suberin in the cells. *The cambium forms cells that differentiate to form this Wall 4.*
> (excerpted from NTB, pg. pg. 420)



So, which is it, that differentiated cambium cells form wall4 or wall4 is some keno reaction barrier zone independent of callus/cambium? Seems you have hedged your bets on both animals.

Barrier zones, reactions zones and wall4 ... not all the same animal and the variety plus inconsistencies I see and read validate this, just like the one written above.

You agreed with these posts, but you also wrote somewhere that wall4 has nothing to do with callus .... getting mixed messages here Dave.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?p=1556613#post1556613

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?p=1557195#post1557195


----------



## treevet (Aug 6, 2009)

Ekka said:


> If that's the case please reference your "pointing out", there's a long thread unfinished on this very topic I know of elsewhere.



I "pointed this out" on your forum (your elsewhere reference) I believe but it may not have been in the thread you reference and I am not about to search 2,500 posts. I may also have pointed it out to you in a PM in response to your initial PM asking me for information regarding Wall4.

I am still trying to get a grasp on this ....as are many people including the originator of this thread, likely the people reading this thread and also likely you. Much of it comes down to a matter of semantics. 

I know Dr. Shigo had little or no reference to woundwood as opposed to callus and their difference properties in his first book A New Tree Biology and this changed with time and research and understanding.
.
Therefore my shifting of opinion based on readings and discussion doesn't embarrass me in the least. It should not embarrass you either. I know that people have been banned from your forum just from disagreeing with you in regards to your opinions on Wall 4 and other semi-conjectural issues.

I will try to address more of your post later as I am buried in work and I am already late. But I assure you that all of what you read in my posts is essentially directly from texts by Shigo, Schwarze, Gilman, Harris, Pirone, et. al. as I am not a scientist. But I am trying to ascertain the truth.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 6, 2009)

> Dave, where you have marked up your picture with "A" I think was existing at time of injury.





> The original wound you see there was at least 10 years old possibly as much as 20 years old.



The property owners confirmed that wound existed when they purchased the house 10 years ago. It is highly unlikely then that point A existed at that time. It seems far more likely that point A marks the edge of the column of rot the descended into the trunk from a stub or flush cut.



> There were multiple decay sites up the trunk which appeared to be as a result of poor compartmentalization post pruning.



The furthest wound from the ground showed the least internal decay and as they got closer to the ground the average amount of decay seemed to increase as did the depth of the decay measured from the point of entry. I cannot recall if *ALL*of the wounds appeared to have produced the rams horns shown in the OP but *SOME* definately did.



> The other two arrows further up has grown after wounding, we have established clearly that where there is no wound wood (differentiated callus wood) there is no wall4, that was very conclusive even by the biggest proponents of wall4 present at time of wounding proponents.



I have read and reread the thread where you suggested this Ekka. I have trouble understanding how living hollow trees could exist and prosper if wall4 is absolutely dependent on the creation of wound wood. Do you believe this to be absolute or is it perhaps common that the two must exist together but not always a requirement. If the latter do you believe this to be goverend primarily by species,location,wound type or some other factors.



> Barrier zones, reactions zones and wall4 held solid.





> The wound progressed (as expected) to the centre of the tree (pith) and decayed from inside out where once again we tested that wall4 wont initiate when the decay comes from inside migrating outside as the cells which differentiate to callus are not being affected and not triggering a wall4 response.



??

These statements contradict each other. Were you having a laugh with the first one?? Do you think that wall4 initiated at all in this tree or not?

Thanks everyone for your comments so far.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 6, 2009)

Ekka said:


> When I need my lawn mowed I call Jims, when I need my trees done I call a qualified arborist who researched and studied.
> 
> Consumers choose your tree man carefully, we are far from being all the same.



Its good to see you use a great lawn mowing service Ekka!

And I agree, not all tree men are the same. Some follow OHS regs to ensure everyone on site is safe and others blatantly disregard these mandatory regulations and do their own thing.


----------



## treeseer (Aug 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> Much of it comes down to a matter of semantics.



:agree2: Not much point in wrestling to fit all this data into that model.

And I also agree with Sean about those lines of demarcation showing more about fungal spread than tree response.

But discoloration is not decay; it may be just the deposition of compounds that resist decay.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 6, 2009)

treeseer said:


> :agree2: Not much point in wrestling to fit all this data into that model.
> 
> And I also agree with Sean about those lines of demarcation showing more about fungal spread than tree response.
> 
> But discoloration is not decay; it may be just the deposition of compounds that resist decay.



The darkest material smelled awful, very much like rotten meat. I took that to mean it was rot of some sort. I have not encountered wood that smelled so bad before. Is this common?


----------



## Ekka (Aug 6, 2009)

treevet said:


> I know that people have been banned from your forum just from disagreeing with you in regards to your opinions on Wall 4 and other semi-conjectural issues.



Then you are mislead and fruitfully carrying on rumour that fits your agenda.

What people get banned for is conduct, the way they approach a debate, sadly it is clear that many have to get ugly, personal, name calling, derogatory and scandelous .... then they get banned. That is the truth Dave but I am not surprised you and others like your versions because "it fits your model" of what you'd like to see the world as.

How many of the goof balls here are banned for the same reason? Can't put up a decent debate or plight, but tread down the well trodden smear and lie campaign that suits their needs.

Take a look at that OOMT, fits right in again with his distorted lies and rubbish. You're trying to educate and reason with something of that caliber, Lordy! Last time I answered his ignorant perspectives (like Treeseers too) they were selectively edited and I was banned, how befitting, Once again the cheap shots are out ... but who cares, so typical and befitting of this site.

<Yawn> Time to do something better than argue with fools. :monkey:


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 6, 2009)

Ekka said:


> Then you are mislead and fruitfully carrying on rumour that fits your agenda.
> 
> What people get banned for is conduct, the way they approach a debate, *sadly it is clear that many have to get ugly, personal, name calling, derogatory and scandelous *.... then they get banned. That is the truth Dave but I am not surprised you and others like your versions because "it fits your model" of what you'd like to see the world as.
> 
> ...





> If brains were made of electricity you'd be a walking blackout. LOL



This PM you sent me less than 1 hour ago says it all Ekka. You are a hypocrite of the first water.

I asked some genuine questions, posted a photograph and the only person who came here with an agenda beyond seeking knowledge was you. Feel free to contribute worthwhile information but this is not the place where you hold the power of selective editing and/or banning as you see fit. And I do not roll over for bullies, cyber or otherwise.

Thanks for the neg rep, it is a compliment coming from you.


----------



## Bermie (Aug 6, 2009)

Those black lines deep in the interior of the tree are caused by competing fungi...wood turners love this kind of discoloured wood, when it is still hard, before it turns spongy...they call it 'spalting' I believe. I've seen lovely planks of spalted oak and walnut in the UK.

HATE S. terebinthifolius...

Ekka, dude, chill out!!!


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 6, 2009)

Thats a new one on me Bermie thanks for the tip.

I found this page which although has observations rather than data opened my eyes to a few ideas.

http://www.rrpwhite.com/burl%20spalt%20info.htm

What is interesting in that small web page are the pictures of burls on aspen which are similar to growths I saw on the Schinus molle I mentioned. I wonder how closely related the creation of burls and the "spalting" actually are. Does one indicate the other or are they both symptomatic of a tree in a weakened state....


----------



## treeseer (Aug 6, 2009)

A lot of my cut red maple gets laid on the ground for a year to spalt and then gets turned into bowls.

up here most burls are a sign of a strengthened state.

Sorry to see the fratricide continues at the downunder cyberfiefdom.


----------



## D Mc (Aug 6, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> The darkest material smelled awful, very much like rotten meat. I took that to mean it was rot of some sort. I have not encountered wood that smelled so bad before. Is this common?



I have no reference for the trees and decay you are dealing with; however, in regards to odor, it is quite common when bacteria is present. Maybe this would explain some of the complex interactions we see on your cut.

http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/47-3060.pdf

Dave


----------



## treevet (Aug 6, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> The property owners confirmed that wound existed when they purchased the house 10 years ago. It is highly unlikely then that point A existed at that time. It seems far more likely that point A marks the edge of the column of rot the descended into the trunk from a stub or flush cut.



My guess, as good as any here, is that the tree wounded itself later with the pressure of co dominant buttresses pinching together.




> The furthest wound from the ground showed the least internal decay and as they got closer to the ground the average amount of decay seemed to increase as did the depth of the decay measured from the point of entry. I cannot recall if *ALL*of the wounds appeared to have produced the rams horns shown in the OP but *SOME* definately did.



Did you dissect the tree farther up to ascertain this. Let's see some pictures


----------



## treevet (Aug 6, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> The darkest material smelled awful, very much like rotten meat. I took that to mean it was rot of some sort. I have not encountered wood that smelled so bad before. Is this common?



Not familiar with that genus of tree but sounds like the foul odor of bacterial wetwood (slime flux) in some of our trees.

(oops, missed DMC's post)


----------



## treevet (Aug 6, 2009)

I think the example I had given after researching numerous books... of the hollow tree and the obvious extension of the Barrier zone might be enhanced to illustrate that woundwood (earlier callus) is not Wall 4 and the newest growth ring is not wall 4 (although as mentioned it has a greater protection capacity)......

Can be found on Page 95, A new Tree Biology with an infestation of ants unvoluntarily performing the research......

"the ants are following the microorganisms, which follow the CODIT patterns. Note the large, clean cavities made by the ants. The ants have had over 50 years to mine in a radial direction, they have not done so.

There is a picture of a tree with completely healthy sapwood and discolored wood inside where ants have riddled with galleries.


----------



## treevet (Aug 6, 2009)

Ekka said:


> > So, which is it, that differentiated cambium cells form wall4 or wall4 is some keno reaction barrier zone independent of callus/cambium? Seems you have hedged your bets on both animals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 7, 2009)

> In either scenario a new Wall 4 was formed and the barrier zone was shifted.
> 
> This begs the question.....Does Wall 4 ("limits the spread of infection") have to collapse completely and give an opening "outta" the tree to constitute a failure or just shift?



This was the reason for my calling the thread "multiple wall4 failures". Perhaps the wording gave a different meaning to my thoughts than was intended. "Shifting" is exactly what I assume happened. As a portion of the barrier failed so it was recreated further from the pith resulting in the new marks. 

I wonder if this has occurred does it mean that both explanations are accurate? That is, as wall4 is formed the wood darkens as noted in ANTB. Later the barrier fails at a certain point where one species of fungi, lets call this one fungiA, proves too strong. The tree then recreates or shifts the barrier at that point, perhaps even adjusting the chemical make-up of the cell structure of the barrier to defend against fungi A. Subsequent failures of the barrier would then perhaps be forced by a different species of fungi, say fungi B. This failure is compensated for by recreating the barrier which is now impervious to fungiA and fungiB but still in the decaying wood is fungiC... and so on. This would result in various "pockets"of differing fungi whilst still allowing the tree to have continued to grow. 


I know this is simplified but hey, I'm a simple guy.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 7, 2009)

treevet said:


> Did you dissect the tree farther up to ascertain this. Let's see some pictures



Forgive me oh wise one, I did not take enough photo's. Gulp.

I am reliant on my memory for most of this TV but what I saw as I bucked the log from top to bottom was deeper and deeper columns of rot into the tree. What I ass-u-me-d from this was that the lower wounds were older and had more time to do their evil work.

Gotta buy a bluetooth dongle tomorrow so I can dl the photo's from my phone. This may shed some light on the subject of burls at least.

Once again, thanks all for the input.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 7, 2009)

D Mc said:


> I have no reference for the trees and decay you are dealing with; however, in regards to odor, it is quite common when bacteria is present. Maybe this would explain some of the complex interactions we see on your cut.
> 
> http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/47-3060.pdf
> 
> Dave



Holy crap. Do you read that stuff often? Fair dinkum I thought my brain would explode! I honestly don't know what the research paper actually means. D mc could you please translate. In human.


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 7, 2009)

Oi, Treeseer. Clear some of your pm's I cant send untill you do!


----------



## treevet (Aug 7, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> This was the reason for my calling the thread "multiple wall4 failures". Perhaps the wording gave a different meaning to my thoughts than was intended. "Shifting" is exactly what I assume happened. As a portion of the barrier failed so it was recreated further from the pith resulting in the new marks.
> 
> I wonder if this has occurred does it mean that both explanations are accurate? That is, as wall4 is formed the wood darkens as noted in ANTB. Later the barrier fails at a certain point where one species of fungi, lets call this one fungiA, proves too strong. The tree then recreates or shifts the barrier at that point, perhaps even adjusting the chemical make-up of the cell structure of the barrier to defend against fungi A. Subsequent failures of the barrier would then perhaps be forced by a different species of fungi, say fungi B. This failure is compensated for by recreating the barrier which is now impervious to fungiA and fungiB but still in the decaying wood is fungiC... and so on. This would result in various "pockets"of differing fungi whilst still allowing the tree to have continued to grow.
> 
> ...



I like the way much of that sounds. Tree protection zones are characterized by shifting. This is why this process is referred to "compartmentalization" and not "compartmentation" (a static entity/process). They are also, as you noted, characterized by "successions" of attacks that are at times successful and sometimes not. The virulence of the pathogen, time of year, environment, weather, host vitality, etc., all play into this dance.

But as for Wall 4, the strongest wall and necessarily so, if this fails in the first growth increment within the cambium, then IMO the cambium will be killed and the tree dies if it girdles the stem. If there are attacks and it is later on then much storage space is walled off and similar results can occur with less ability to defend (which is based on storage being sequestered).


----------



## D Mc (Aug 7, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> Holy crap. Do you read that stuff often? Fair dinkum I thought my brain would explode! I honestly don't know what the research paper actually means. D mc could you please translate. In human.




LOL. I appreciate your frank honesty. So often in threads, such as this, there is a deterioration from the butting of swelled heads. 

Do I read these reports often? Unfortunately, yes. As my wife advances in her studies, these type of things come up in our discussion groups and I must say, even though I have been in the tree business for over 40 years, I am amazed at what I do not know. 

I am not a mycologist so I cannot break this report down to simple English. My advice is just to read this report and others like it carefully, primarily sticking to the abstract and the conclusions, you will find yourself understanding more and more. This was posted just to illustrate the complexities of the interactions between fungi and bacteria which can leave their tracks for those of us caring to try to decipher.

Dave


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 7, 2009)

D Mc said:


> LOL. I appreciate your frank honesty. So often in threads, such as this, there is a deterioration from the butting of swelled heads.
> 
> Do I read these reports often? Unfortunately, yes. As my wife advances in her studies, these type of things come up in our discussion groups and I must say, even though I have been in the tree business for over 40 years, I am amazed at what I do not know.
> 
> ...



Oh boy. You mean I have to read more of these. Owww. This is worse than ice cream brain freeze.....

Thanks for the link mate. I will try again with a strong coffee under my belt and matchsticks under my eyelids...


----------



## treevet (Aug 7, 2009)

outofmytree said:


> This was the reason for my calling the thread "multiple wall4 failures".



To have a wall 4 there must be an injury and infection (as there always with injury). This gives the "wood formed prior to injury vs wood formed after the injury". 

There are 2 distinct wounds evident in this section of the tree and this is where the wall 4 has to exist in that inter growth increment space. There will be woundwood originating in the area of the wound to identify the growth increment. The wound can even be identified as to what month the injury occurred I have read unless it occurs in the dormant season.

I do not think you had any idea what/where wall 4 was when you started this thread and when I asked you to identify your premise.


----------



## treevet (Aug 7, 2009)

D Mc said:


> > threads, such as this, there is a deterioration from the butting of swelled heads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## outofmytree (Aug 8, 2009)

treevet said:


> To have a wall 4 there must be an injury and infection (as there always with injury). This gives the "wood formed prior to injury vs wood formed after the injury".
> 
> There are 2 distinct wounds evident in this section of the tree and this is where the wall 4 has to exist in that inter growth increment space. There will be woundwood originating in the area of the wound to identify the growth increment. The wound can even be identified as to what month the injury occurred I have read unless it occurs in the dormant season.
> 
> *I do not think you had any idea what/where wall 4 was when you started this thread and when I asked you to identify your premise*.




I had an idea TV but I am beginning to think it was the wrong idea!

I initially believed that the red line in the photo below would indicate the approximate position of the first wall4 formed. (Pardon the liquid paper!)







I believe the injury to have formed as far back as 20 years ago and that the original pith has become the smelly brown stuff you see above.

Exactly where this barrier of modified cells COULD form is a topic much discussed between jobs and over lunch. I have ass-u-me-d that only undifferentiated cells could form this barrier so this would mean that wall4 would form on the inside of the cambium in the months following injury. Of course this assumption then led to even more heated debate over what then happens to the xylem and how does the tree draw water upward if the xylem is compromised every time the tree forms wall4.

As you can see, I am not without ideas. But your signature applies rather well here I think. I do enjoy everyone's input on this fascinating (to me) topic and I can assure you I do not take offense when you shine a spotlight on the gaping holes in my knowledge.


----------



## treevet (Aug 8, 2009)

Now that is a very thoughtful post. Why didn't we go for that in the beginning?

Why aren't more people opining?


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 28, 2010)

Ekka said:


> So, which is it, that differentiated cambium cells form wall4 or wall4 is some keno reaction barrier zone independent of callus/cambium? Seems you have hedged your bets on both animals.
> 
> Barrier zones, reactions zones and wall4 ... not all the same animal and the variety plus inconsistencies I see and read validate this, just like the one written above.



Wall 4 is a tricky one. It is a physical and biochemical response that is formed by cambium cells present at the time of wounding. 

Kino itself is not a wall 4 response but Kino bands are. When Shigo first visited Australia he pointed out that burning caused kino bands and that this injury was turning premium grade wood into pulp timber. The anatomical differences in a kino band can be easilly observed with a loupe.

Unlike any other walls, wall 4 is an actual wall or barrier rather than being just part of a model. As a result it gets called a reaction zone (since it involves various chemical and anatomical reactions) or a barrier zone (since it forms a very strong barrier to the outward spread of decay).

Hopefully that clarifies things


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 28, 2010)

I feel another brain freeze coming on. I will read a little more then throw out some questions.

And congratulations on your thread necromancy skills Corymbia!


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 28, 2010)

treevet said:


> To have a wall 4 there must be an injury and infection (as there always with injury).



Wall 4 requires an injury to live xylem tissue ... it does not require an infection althought an infection is almost inevitable since there are normally stored sugars in the sapwood


----------



## jomoco (Mar 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> You can see one of the many burls(?) in the top left hand corner of the photograph. I forgot to take any good photo's pre removal so all I have is a couple of pictures from my phone but this tree had numerous tumour like lumps all over the bark. When we dissected them there was no obvious evidence of why they started but I am sure someone wiser than I will have an idea.



What you're mistakenly calling burls and tumors, is in reality buttressing wood, and it's perfectly natural and expected on mathure S. molle, along with hollow cores.

jomoco


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 28, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> I had an idea TV but I am beginning to think it was the wrong idea!
> 
> I initially believed that the red line in the photo below would indicate the approximate position of the first wall4 formed. (Pardon the liquid paper!)
> 
> ...



I could be wrong but you are getting the action of fungi mixed up with wall 4. The fungal activity that you are seeing could have originated elsewhere since wall 1 is very week. There is a clear wound to what appears to be a root (or branch) stub. The reaction wood indicates this wound is fairly recent.

The tree appears to be a poor compartmentaliser so I am guessing it is a Shinus? The fungus is repeatedly breaking through and forming new boundaries. To survive the fungus needs to win or reproduce. With shinus it can do both.


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 28, 2010)

> What you're mistakenly calling burls and tumors, is in reality buttressing wood, and it's perfectly natural and expected on mathure S. molle, along with hollow cores.
> 
> jomoco



I make lots of mistakes Jomoco and this time it was not taking enough photographs. Other than what you can see here, there were indeed isolated "lumps" of wood where no buttressing wood normally forms. There was, in addition to those "lumps", the quite normal basal flaring that is commonly associated with _Schinus molle_

Corymbia I thought that the ongoing battle between the outer "healthy" wood and the inner rotten wood was repeat failures of wall 4. I posted the few photographs I took as a question rather than a statement of fact.

I have a rough idea of CODIT but as you can see, not much experience at seperating different processes occurring in trees. 

There are very few _S.molle_ in Perth but it seems that what I took to be unusual in this tree is in fact quite common in the species. I have noticed similar development in other specimens but as they are demonstrably younger it is less obvious. 

Ah well. If I had not opened my mouth I would not have revealed my ignorance but then I would have remained ignorant too.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 28, 2010)

I think I see the issue. What you are seeing is the spread of fungi along with new barriers and breaching of the barriers by the fungi. These are not wall 4's. The injury elsewhere and you are looking at are probably breaches of wall 2 which is not very effective on Shinus. As a result they are prone to extensive decay. 

In addition wall 1 is very weak and when wall 2 is also weak you can end up with the fungi being further inside than where it started and then moving in and out from that point. Those who rip timber will often observe this.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 29, 2010)

*Kino bands in detail*



Corymbia said:


> .
> Kino itself is not a wall 4 response but Kino bands are. When Shigo first visited Australia he pointed out that burning caused kino bands and that this injury was turning premium grade wood into pulp timber. The anatomical differences in a kino band can be easilly observed with a loupe.



My mum told me to play nicely with the other children and to add a picture or two. (I apologise for not prepping the samples properly but I wanted to get home early)

The first image is the start of the kino band (transverse section) you can see the immediate change in the structure.The xylem goes from anisotropic to isotropic (much like wound wood), no vessels are formed and rays are essentially defunct. The cells are small and dense. The kino fills the voids and limits connectivity between the pre-wound and post-wound tissue.

By comparison the outside of the kino band "Kino band (1)" xylem transitions more gradually back to the formation of typical anisotropic tissue.

Let me know if this helps or if you need me to prepare up and stain full samples to make it clearer.


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 29, 2010)

Allow me to speak for the other knuckle draggers here when I say, Fark this kino, where do I put my chainsaw!

This is the greatest strength of our forum IMO. 

I honestly am a little confused by the differences between kino and kino bands but I know Corymbia will do his best to educate me. I may be a lawn mowing wannabe but who knows, perhaps a little wisdom may rub off.

Give me a couple of days and I will have some more intelligent questions.


----------



## Boa07 (Mar 29, 2010)

Sometimes using correct rerminology is less than helpful...

From almost a year ago


> I strongly suspect what you are looking at in the dark lines through the cross section of the stem are demarcation lines from competing fungi.



The less than helpful correct terminology is....

You are more than likely looking at zone lines produced at the edge of pseudo sclerotial plates. 

The fact that wood decay fungi create protected boundaries around the volume of wood tissues they are consuming is not really all that surprising.

When it comes to Kino channels/vessels/canals it can be equally confusing to get lost in jargon.

Whilst it is tempting as Australians to feel that Kino channels are something special to Eucs they are not, and more experienced commercial forestry harvesters will know only too well the significant losses in merchantable timber associated with the formation of traumatic resin canals in pines.

There has beensubstantial research carried out in an attempt to develop greater understanding of what processes are going on following wounding that result in the resin canals, kino channels....

From my limited level of understanding it is more accurate to recognise that the formation of kino channels is often a function of traumatised parenchyma, and not derived from the vascular cambium. This (in younger trees) is often produced from the meristematic activity of the inner phloem parenchyma..this also involves the parenchyma rays.

Despite all the money poured into this kind of research by the pulp industry (kino channels are not what they need in their production process) to me at least more remains unknown than known regarding the chemical control over kino channel production.


----------



## tree md (Mar 29, 2010)

outofmytree said:


> *Allow me to speak for the other knuckle draggers here when I say, Fark this kino, where do I put my chainsaw!
> *
> This is the greatest strength of our forum IMO.
> 
> ...



LOL, that's me.

I do have a basic understanding of CODIT and how it works but no where near on the level as some of these guys around here.

Thanks for an interesting, thought provoking thread.


----------



## Corymbia (Apr 3, 2010)

Boa07 said:


> From my limited level of understanding it is more accurate to recognise that the formation of kino channels is often a function of traumatised parenchyma, and not derived from the vascular cambium. This (in younger trees) is often produced from the meristematic activity of the inner phloem parenchyma..this also involves the parenchyma rays.



Sean,

I am more often than not wrong but I suspect that it depends on the stimulus of the wound. Impact wounds are understandably far more likely to develop kino bands from axial parenchyma but I am not sure that this is so for insect induced wounds and I am totally unsure of fire induced wounds because I seldom get to play with them.

In any case it is certainly an abrupt wall. In spite of this there are fungi that just seem to walk through. 

I am at Southbank this week, perhaps we can catch up


----------



## Boa07 (Apr 3, 2010)

I definately seem to build my limited understanding of tree biology on all the mistaken positions I have taken in the past..

I would love to catch up, but I'm only up near Brissy on Wednesday (in what used to be beautiful Calamvale )

I agree the origin of the dysfunction is very important, I'll see if I can track anything down from Tas Forestry re fire injury and Kino channels...vaguely remember a paper on fire intensity and circumferencial banding...not kino channels though.


----------



## Corymbia (Dec 11, 2011)

*I think this is an amazing shot*



outofmytree said:


> Allow me to speak for the other knuckle draggers here when I say, Fark this kino, where do I put my chainsaw!
> 
> This is the greatest strength of our forum IMO.
> 
> ...



Here is another nice shot that shows vascular association with the main stem a side branch and around and over some small branchlets, I love the vessel that does a full 360 degree loop. Tree anatomy, biology and physiology are fun!


----------

