|I’d Call It That||3.0||10.23||2||(Noah)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
|I’d Call It That||3.0||0.00||0|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
…of other features of these Zones besides the tree species present. Canopy is one of them — Zone 07 and Zone 08 are adjacent and very similar, being fairly open red pine with thick underbrush, but differ in that the canopy is more open i Zone 08. The soil is sandy in Zone 02 and gravelly in Zone 28; muddy in Zones 06 and 11 but drier and needle-carpeted in Zone 05; and so forth. Zone 03 has Clintonia borealis plants, as does Zone 52, as do several other zones, but not Zone 02 for instance, or Zone 15, or any non-forest Zone. Zone 10 and Zone 12 yield up Cypripedium acaule and I’ve seen some in Zone 15 but none in Zone 03. (The latter plant is thought to be mycorrhizal, in particular.) Zone 06 is low and damp, by the river in fact, and the hardwoods there include some older growth ones of substantial girth, particularly the two species of birch present. (About one of these I saw H. fasciculare once; and nowhere else in the whole chunk of woodland, at least thus far.) Zone 11 is high and damp. Zone 05 is high and dry. Zone 02 is also dry. Zones 15, 19, and 38 have large areas of soft moss that grow particular mushroom species; Zones 03 and 11 and most others do not. And so forth.
now I see what you are attempting. Bravo! The absence of certain mushrooms in certain plots could also be a difference in soil types (hate to complicate things further). In my area as well as talking with the late Dr. William Dennison of Oregon State University, Cantharellus formosus will not fruit if the canopy is too open. And certain types of truffle species will not fruit outside of alluvial soil deposits.
That’s basically what I’m doing. I’ve divided things up into zones based to a large degree on the mix of tree species present, and a few other aspects of the habitat. The zones are big, generally tens to hundreds of meters across or more.
For example, Zones 04, 05, 06, and 45 contain Betula allegheniensis. Any mushroom associated with that tree is unlikely to appear in any zone other than those four or, less commonly, adjacent ones — 03, 24, 07, 44, 46, and 47 in this case. Any species abundant or widely scattered in a zone (like 24’s recent rash of pink russulas) is probably associated with a tree likewise common within that zone (in the case of 24, the likely candidates are Pinus resinosa and Pinus strobus, though there are occasional other trees there). A solitary mushroom may be associated with anything in its zone, and if near enough a border, anything in the nearby ones, though.
Another use for tracking the tree species mixtures is to narrow down some of the saprobic types. A decorticated stump in Zone 24 is probably one of those two pine species, for instance, especially if it is over a foot wide. A decorticated stump in Zone 11 is far less likely to be either and far more likely to be a hardwood, particularly Populus tremuloides; most of the other trees in 11 don’t grow as wide as 11’s quaking aspens sometimes do, and the conifers there are mainly slender smallish balsam firs and spruces.
Then there’s dealing with a mushroom found over a very large, multi-zone area. If the zones are fairly different from one another, the common denominator set of trees may be fairly small. For instance chanterelles are abundant right now in many of the zones, but absent from Zone 11, Zone 06, Zone 14, Zone 15, and some other areas. The common factor in the zones missing this species is low abundance or complete lack of red and white pine. Pinus banksiana is abundant (forming pure stands) in Zone 15, but none there. Pinus banksiana and Pinus virginiana are both absent from most of the areas where the chanterelles are abundant. My suspicion leans toward red pine in this case, and away from the two short-needle pines and the hardwoods.
between mushrooms and trees is not necessary. But it does help a lot in narrowing down possibilities. Mostly the mycorrhizal relationship between certain tree species and fungi has been done. But if the collection does not note nearby trees, positive identification cannot be done. For example, Tuber gibbosum is associated solely with Douglas fir. But it originally was collected in a mixed stand of trees. Therefore no one knew which tree (or even whether hardwood or conifer) was the host species. After 100 years of research and careful record keeping, that relationship has been well studied in many cases. And the host tree in a mycorrhizal relationship doesn’t even have to be close by. A 150-foot-tall tree might have mycorrhizal mushrooms fruiting 300 feet away – or more, according to Dr. Michael Castellano. That’s why noting as many possible tree species as possible is important for mushroom identification.
Manual focus works better if the background is busy.
Another tip from Michael Kuo:
1. Put a white sheet of paper or cardboard behind the mushroom.
2. Press shutter enough to get camera to focus on the mushroom.
3. Pull out card before shutter releases.
Now I’ve just come back from a trip that I only ended when the light started failing, and I have 140 photos to process. (380-odd originally, and two pairs of batteries depleted taking them; but had lots of trouble with the autofocus this trip and needing to retake shots. Mem card is so huge I don’t bother deleting the bad ones in the field.) Next up is recalling where I saw each one, to edit the filename to add the zone number.
One of these days I’ll cross-correlate the mushrooms and trees seen in each zone and maybe figure out what’s symbiotic with what.
The colors are accurate, but might be exaggerated by long exposure time in low light. I found this bolete button at dusk as i was exiting the woods. It is only about an inch long. I did not look at the pores or spend much time with this mushroom, as It was late and I had already taken more photos than I had time to process and post. My initial impression was a small B. inedulis.
Wow! If the stipe color is true to life I have to say I’ve never seen any bolete with that bright red stipe. I’m assuming it’s a bolete and guessing the pores are red? Great photo.
cannot rule out Gastroboletus, either. I have never seen such brilliant bluing before. No photos of gills. I see no comment (but would like to see) about size. If smallish, Gastroboletus, while seldom this erumpent in my experience, might be a consideration.
Wow, that looks so unreal! Like a coloring book illustration done
by a kid who REALLY likes bright colors!
proposed for a similar observation.
Created: 2009-08-02 05:10:44 WAT (+0100)
Last modified: 2012-02-17 17:56:02 WAT (+0100)
Viewed: 224 times, last viewed: 2016-11-21 07:26:32 WAT (+0100)