I've reviewed two years of postings on diseases here, and seen Ganoderma, Polyporus and other fungi mentioned. Consensus seems to be when these fungi infect an entire circumference, removal is the solution.
the question is, when the infection(s) are local, is sanitation recommendable? I've done it for years, avoiding breaking barriers, and seen many fungal and bacterial infections apparently die off for good.
But the weight of opinion in my area, from pathologists, extension people, urban foresters ranges from "treatment is unproved" to "measuring decay is too complex and expensive " (this after two workshops painstakingly going over risk assessment) to "the potential harm outweighs the potential good", to insinuations that sanitation is outright snake oil pushed by greedy arborists to overly hopeful customers.
Since no controlled research I've seen supports the efficacy of sanitation, they are free to state that Ganoderma, Armillaria, Inonotus, etc. etc.are so virulent the tree will inevitably die (don't they-we-all?)and might as well be cut down now.
This fatalism infects our state's land-grant college and has lead to arboriculture being often dismissed in favor of knee-jerk reactions.
Landmark trees are killed without even being closely looked at, because of a few mushrooms.

Documenting photographic evidence to build a case for treatment is slow. Any other sanitizers out there fighting this battle?
Guy Meilleur

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 02, 2001 at 08:57:42:

Here here!!!!

Reply to post by Reed Holt, on December 02, 2001 at 08:57:42:

Where? Where?
Reed, thanks for the support. Now, if you can get to a camera, please help document the success of sanitization on tree infections.
Data talks; too often everything else walks.
Guy

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 02, 2001 at 18:55:59:

Guy,

Would you please outline for me what you do in a typical sanitizing procedure, including inspection/diagnosis, physical treatment, and any follow-up?
This is unfamiliar territory for me. Thanks.

Reply to post by Mark Goodwin, on December 03, 2001 at 13:13:55:

mark, here's a brief synopsis of a sanitization protocol:
Inspection reveals wound with decay. Loose decayed material removed, taking great care to avoid breaking boundaries and wounding live tissue. As I understand it, this is a necessary part of the inspection--you've got to see what's going on in there, how decayed the tree is.
Decayed area flushed until water runs clear.
Re-inspect for missed pockets of decay and insect holes. Re-clean and re-flush as necessary.
In cavities, some decayed material seems to protect inner wood from excessive drying. The resultant cracking breaks barriers, so some decay should be left alone. As always, the whole tree needs to be considered before acting. Overall, I follow the concept that air and light are the enemies of most fungi and bacteria that are the enemies of the living tree.
(Where there's a wound but no active decay, I understand some fungi like Penicillium are benign, so no treatment is done after removing loose material.)

Spray area with 5% bleach solution to disinfect decay-causing fungi and bacteria. Catch the chlorine before it runs into the rootzone. Treat insect holes that cannot be cleaned out without breaking walls. (I use botanicals like eucalyptus oil, but that's another conversation.)
Monitor for renewed ifection and infestation. Retreat as necessary.
I've taken samples of infected wood to clinics and been told there's such a variety of fungi and bacteria present it's impossible to find out which are the bad guys.

It's clear however that there are many kinds of "slime flux"; the relatively benign kind in elm crotches and the virulent kinds active on the bases of old oaks, etc. When the calls come in May and June about wild insect activity on old oak trunks, the're partying on sap fermented by bacteria. The University of Colorado Extension has a good brochure that I refer to on the ID and treatment of the latter kind, which is a major problem in old oaks in NC.
Associated physical treatment includes stimulating root function by weeding, balanced fertilizing, and widening the mulched area as much as possible. The idea of course is that more vigor will create more and better CODIT.

Certainly this is more care than some tree owners are willing to pay for. But for high-value trees it's a good service, and it's effective most of the time. On pines with fusiform rust, some living bark may need to be trimmed to kill the infection. I've pulled dead bark off oaks that had Ganoderma conks, and one patch that had black shoestrings, done the above treatment (often repeatedly), and the infections haven't returned.

On many others, of course,the infection wins. Even then, if the customer has bought years of useful life, it's often a good investment. There's no guarantee. But the idea that we shouldn't attack the organisms that attack valuable trees makes no sense to me. Nature should always take its course, I agree. But we, when we act naturally, are part of nature. As responsible tree professionals, we can carefully but vigorously respond to these attacks.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 04, 2001 at 11:20:23:

Other than obvious demonstratedy marked abberations or tissue decay, sanitizing attempts here have shown at least in parasitic fungi and certain plant forms invasive to vascular tissue, work such as Guy's for hypoxylon have shown some promise away from what programs recommend we do chemically.

One attempt using controls similar to Guy's method runs counter to advocated measures which largely suggest nothing be done but watch and wait and removal post mortum. Guy appears to have established a way to upset the mechanism, not by sanitizing the inoculum, but by removal of the conidia. Reproductive ascospores for Hypoxylon function as an inoculum but HAVE to originate from a conidial mat which forms pillars later maturing into stromata which grow pillar-like projections that spores emerge from. He literally, as I understand his approach, removes stains suggestive of developing mycelial fans and dislodges further growth and development. Conidia are incapable of causing new infection but may germinate new growth. Remove the tumor before metastasis as I understand him. As dental visits for decay suggest, the removal of healthy pulp beyond the decay before sanitizing, and although convention supports impossible complete eradication, his use of a chlorine-like antibiotic makes this "sanitizing" possible, we've put mistletoe infestations in remission under similar treatments, even though infections were extremely systemic.

Hypoxylon is a decaying fungus, mostly opportunistic and secondary to other infectious but a strain, mammatum, here has been blamed for high mortalities yet as sanitizing seems doable, nobody's too quick to jump on trying other methods. Quick crown loss is a preference to clandestine infections, where we often overlook development other than cross-cuts indicating the obvious staining into the heartwood. Wounds from any source heal, and our observations indicate rapid healing deny the type of infection mostly blamed for the slower development of mammatum which trials indicate need access into heartwood for growth, wounds such as chain saw cuts or equipment like shredders hitting the tree bases. These wounds we advocate need be avoided or treated rapidly if possible, yet, incipient infection occurs over a time period allowing sterilization opportunities industry claim are worthless.

To advocate nothing be done because nothing's been published is akin to ignoring the shooter because he hasn't fired his gun yet. Cavity cleansing to remove decaying matter is aesthetic, but mining into the first precious layers of active vascular tissue for any preceeding tenacles of mycelia is important for hopeful eradication, even though it may involve some pain and injury to the tree overall, the purpose intended is to save the tree, like removal of a foot because of gangrene right below the knee.

I can't post the pics of our cavity work because of this dying machine, but have some statistical data on early crown dieback work in quercus texana infected with atropunctatum. We had recovery suitable for landscape specimens depending of course on how supportive the landowner understood our successes.

Reply to post by Reed, on December 07, 2001 at 09:34:39:

Reed, thanks for describing your work with Hypoxylon. that's one pathogen I never thought of attacking, because I was taught it was always saprophytic. Seems that's not a black-and-white issue.
Tracing into live tissue is something I've only done with rust diseases, but based on your experience I'll be trying it experimentally on hypoxylon, to see the results.
Will let you know what I see.

Reply to post by Guy, on December 11, 2001 at 12:00:16:

Okay, cool and good luck.

One tool box I recommend you carry would have a portable "Dremel" tool with dental heads, a set of Japanese carving tools, like a lathe tool set-up, and squirt bottles of antiseptics like chlorox, sterile water, alcohol, and triple antibiotic salve ( Bacitracin, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin-B-sulfate). Latex gloves are easy to swipe on your next doctor's visit, and a portable magnifier, 30x, 60x, 90x.

Have you ever browsed thru the journals of Luther Burbank, the botanist?

Get a good lens and lighting set-up, maybe you could provide a better photoassay then I can, and collect tissue samples, before and after, even it it means storing them for a while. Lab work I entrust to a couple of the regional cancer centers, most plant labs are limited and don't get into oncogenetics or avirulance factors, maybe with your help we can get somewhere but be forewarned, I'm an oddball in this field.

Good luck,
Reed

Reply to post by Reed, on December 12, 2001 at 10:56:39:

reed, most of what you mention I use. using the salve is a logicalnext step for me--thanks for the tip.
did Luther burbank disinfect tree wounds? I only knew he bred flowers. Will review his journals. Nothing helps justify methodology more than a famous authority.
Re tissue samples and labs, there are 3 universities nearby. Maybe a grad student will get interested...
We are not alone. Others out there stretching the arboricultural envelope in this direction?