The presence of a conk does not mean much other than that there is a fungus present, as has been pointed out. Yet some conks are known to be associated with extensive deterioration of wood in trees.
From Pacific Northwest- If I find a Heterobasidion annosum conk (Annosus root disease)in the butt area of a true fir or hemlock, I know that the roots are digested. How much of the roots? Doesn't matter- the attack is not reversible. The tree will tip over. I don't even bother to get the drill out.
The same may be said of Phellinus weirii on Douglas-fir. Not that there are conks- but evidence of laminated root rot on this species means that the tree has been irreversibly attacked.
In different ecological regions, on different species, we learn what different fungi do and what the prognoses are. Some combinations might work, if it is, for example, a weak pathogen on a resistant species. Other combos will never work, as in strong pathogens on susceptible species. In such a combo, in my opinion, there is no such thing as compartmentalization. The concept does not apply.

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on February 17, 1999 at 01:07:42:

Peter, thanks for the response to to my question at http://tree-tech.com/board/?topic=topic9&msg=81.

Sounds like you, Ian and I are on the same page as to species / decayer relationships and knowledge of local conditions.

I would suggest that current extent of decay and likely future pattern of performance remain important considerations for making management judgments. Even if a particular species is not likely to overcome / outperform / compartmentalize / whatever an infection a particular specimen may be reasonably safe for some period of time, during which budget (money and time) can be spent on specimens which are already unreasonably safe. And during such a lag period sucession and replacemnt can be planned for or started.

Are there good treatments in the literature of these tree species / decay organism performance relationships?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on February 17, 1999 at 01:07:42:

I think (?) we agree in principle that some pathogens present us with only one final scenario. How we manage the infection is where I think the professional stands out.

If your local Doctor diagnosed you with cancer and immediatly gassed you then your wife and kids would probably be pretty pissed off with the treatment.

Fundamentally this is what Peter is suggesting.

An oak infected with Fistulina will inrease in value untill a point arrives when the decay starts to develop. The question is when do we condem the patient to gassing?

I look forward to some enlightened answers

Mac

Reply to post by Ian McDermott, on February 17, 1999 at 06:47:00:

Mac, you read me right, and yes, I'm from Oregon, the Assisted-suicide state.
What I wrote is in the context of hazard, not quality of life, because quality of life does not diminish for a tree as it decays, nor for that matter, do I have any knowledge of quality's diminishment when I die. There are combinations of pathogens and host tree species that are immediate hazards, and others that are "monitor" grade hazards.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on February 17, 1999 at 01:07:42:

Scott, when you wrote you said alot. Let me make this more interesting by inviting some other peole over to a discussion on pathogens, trees, and compartmentalization.

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on February 17, 1999 at 16:51:24:

I agree with Peter that certain indicators tell us enough to make a decision right then and there. Scott, I would be uncomfortable having to testify that although I saw a conk, I did not recommend removal because I believed the conk was not large enogh, or was not sufficient in number to indicate advanced decay.

We do need more detailed informaion on all such aspects which is what I am trying to do with my research on preliminary species profiles (yes, Peter I know I still have to send info to you). This area of hazard tree assessment is grey at best, and much as I do not want to condemn every tree with a conk, I think a prudent approach is warranted. We all know that arboreal euthanasia may be politiclaly incorrect but professionally right.

Julian

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on February 18, 1999 at 21:42:33:

I should clarify. Yes indeed if the expert sees external indications of decay (conks or otherwise) more investigation is needed. If on that further investigation current condition (extent of trunk decay, extent of root loss, strength loss, whatever) is determined to be so extensive as to result in unreasonable risk of failure, it's got to go.

If on the other hand that further investigation reveals a lesser current risk of failure (i.e. not unreasonable) another management decision or recommendation migth be made.

Say your a municipal manager. You identify 500 trees with those external symptoms. You investigate all 500. You have budget to remove 200 per year. Group 1: 150 unreasonable risks. Group 2: 150 are well above unreasonable threshold but are likely to deteriorate in the future (the ultimate end you and Peter describe). Group 3: 100 that are even less risky but face the same downward spiral and 100 that can be mitigated by removing affected branches or leaders.

You spent 1/8 of you year 1 budget on the detailed investigations. That means you have budget left to remove 175 trees and you do. That gets rid of all of group 1 and 25 of group 2. Year 2 you remove remaining 125 from group 2 and 75 from group 3. Year 3 you remove the remaining 25 in group 3 and prune the other 100. Or you extend the project period and use some of the budget for replanting, pruning and additional monitoring in each year.

That seems to me to be responsible management while preserving canopy for a while and considering public sentiment.

Reply to post by Scott, on February 20, 1999 at 12:32:35:

I certainly do not have a problem with such a management plan.
We really should be careful about the generalizations of "conks" and so forth.
As someone else pointed out, conks of what fungus on which host tree?
I maintain that Indian paint fungus on true fir with a target is always a hazard, and that red ring rot fungus on Douglas-fir might not be. As an example.Our generalizations are a big problem, as in, for example, compartmentalization-- which tree, which fungus??

Reply to post by Scott, on February 20, 1999 at 12:32:35:

I was told that there is a market for indian paint fungus conks(not the black ugly ones on the green trees ,but the ones with white undersides and red rings on top that grow on dead trees)as hurbs.
Do you know anything about this?

Sincerly,
Doug Howe