Anyone recognise this (mycorhizal?) fungi?

I'm becoming more interested in the soil food web.

At work, we were pulling out a cucumber bed that was quite diseased - likely fusarium wilt or possibly a wireworm issue.

One of the plants had a really really big mass of white and almost saw-dusty looking mycelium. This particular plant didn't seem too stressed.

A co-worker comment that a (non-diseased) bed of celery had a lot of roots like this.

I guess this is a mycorhizal fungi. But I've never known mycelium to be anything other than white?

I wonder if any one here who is more fungi-savvy might have some insight?

Hi, Jon

One year, I had that on my carrots so I took them to our County Extension Office.

They sent them to a lab to find out what it was.  They said it was some kind of fungus.  That's it, they were not concerned.

Not knowing what kind of fungus it was I threw the carrots away.

That was a long time ago so if it happened today I would probably just wash the carrots well and eat them.

I have also seen that white podwery stuff on woodchips.

It is most likely a mychorizal fungus that will be beneficial to the plant. Notice how it seems to be integrated with the roots.  It’s estimated that 80 to 90 percent of plants rely on mychorizal fungi.   It’s somewhat documented with trees, but I think a lot of research needs done when it comes to using fungi in conjunction with vegetable cultivation.

You’d need a DNA analysis for a possible answer.   Or wait until it produces mushrooms.

So further investigation with a facebook group of mycorrhizal enthusiasts suggest it's probably not mycorrhizal, as you don't see hyphae. You certainly don't get fruiting bodies from mychorrizal fungi.

If fungal, it's saprophitic. More than a few people thought it root aphids, but I am less inclined to believe that based on most of the plants this being under being fine - but next time I come across it I will whip out the loupe to see if I can see any.

I spoke to my colleague who said he also found some in less root-specific areas, furthering the saprophitic  hypothesis.

It may be, but I’d like to make several points.

You do indeed get fruiting bodies from mychorizal fungus. Many of the wild mushrooms we collect (Chanterelles, Parasols, etc.) are, as well as many we will not collect (Russulas, Aminitas).  As I type this, I’m cooking some Hydnum umbilicatum that I picked this morning, which was mychorizal with hemlock trees.

The fact that the plant you showed was healthier points to mychorizal to me.

The fact that he saw the mycelium away from the plant was not surprising.  Mycelium spreads over a large area.  The other possibility is that you have multiple species of mycelium, and it’s possible to have both types.

Even if it is saprotrophic, it’s probably beneficial to the plants as it’s breaking down something in the soil so that your vegetables can intake it more easily.

If it was hurting the live plant it would be considered parasitic.

Kevin Hoover wrote:It may be, but I’d like to make several points.

You do indeed get fruiting bodies from mychorizal fungus. Many of the wild mushrooms we collect (Chanterelles, Parasols, etc.) are, as well as many we will not collect (Russulas, Aminitas).  As I type this, I’m cooking some Hydnum umbilicatum that I picked this morning, which was mychorizal with hemlock trees.

The fact that the plant you showed was healthier points to mychorizal to me.

The fact that he saw the mycelium away from the plant was not surprising.  Mycelium spreads over a large area.  The other possibility is that you have multiple species of mycelium, and it’s possible to have both types.

Even if it is saprotrophic, it’s probably beneficial to the plants as it’s breaking down something in the soil so that your vegetables can intake it more easily.

If it was hurting the live plant it would be considered parasitic.

Ah, I never realised that mychorizal fungi fruited! Maybe it's just Arbuscular mycorrhiza that don't? Or I may just be completely off-base?
However, I still understood that you don't really see hyphae on myco fungi? Again, happy to be corrected!

I agree I don't think it's parasitic!

The phrase "first do no harm"  comes to mind. Regardless of which exact type it is, if the plant is healthy, there's a good chance that whatever exact critter you've got, it means you no harm. I admit my eyes glazed over the other day while reading this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza

I really need to read it through several times. However to me, the important take-away is that they aren't there to harm plants. Even many of the parasitic fungi normally attack already weakened trees in an effort to keep a forest healthy. It's often in artificial settings where the soil life is compromised that fungal attacks get out of hand. I took a picture several years back of a slime mold at the base of a tomato plant that seemed quite fine and was glad to hear back that it was nothing to worry about and sure enough, the tomato plant stayed healthy and produced just fine. Still, I'd never seen it before, and was glad to have the help, because it looked pretty gross!

One of my biggest take-aways from permaculture is just how much more "symbiosis" there is in nature and natural gardens, rather than the "survival of the fittest" crap we have shoveled at us. I know I've read, (but can't remember where) of some some fungi that are *known* to be parasitic, are in fact only parasitic in *some* circumstances. Apparently under some conditions, they may actually be fulfilling a symbiotic role. So good luck with your new friends and I hope they go forth and spread!

Indeed, the "good bug, bag bug" dichotomy of microorganisms is false. Ecoli, for example, is important in soil and human health (synthesises k vitamins) - it's all about balance. The cultivated garden is inhertently imbalanced and unstable, but indigenous growers in all corners of the globe have been working in closer connection to nature - permaculture, agroforestry, regenerative ag, biological farming etc are all modern ways to bring our cultivated food systems closer to their wild and more stable states. But it's an unachievable aspiration.

It's certainly an interesting balance when your income and ability to afford a roof largely depends on growing food. A lot of permaculture ideals are much tougher to uphold.

Anyway, we weren't planning to "treat" anything (if thats what you meant by "do no harm") - just keen to get a greater understanding of the biology happening under foot!

Jon Crossen wrote:Anyway, we weren't planning to "treat" anything (if thats what you meant by "do no harm") - just keen to get a greater understanding of the biology happening under foot!

Dear no! I meant that Nature meant to do no harm by the white stuff it grew in your garden, just like the slime mold meant no harm to my tomatoes. I agree that the more we understand things, the more we can keep trying to work symbiotically with nature.
And wrote:

But it's an unachievable aspiration.

As in totally stable, or just "more stable"? I'm not sure that "totally stable" is even my goal? Living on the North Wet Coast, I see the fluctuations caused by El Nino which affects our weather and I see how the balance of predator and prey shift as my area has discouraged artificial pesticides, and if you look long enough through Earth's geological history, stable on a grand scale simply isn't a realistic target!

I'd be happy if more people just opened their eyes to how Nature works *with* us and how we need to ditch the old attitude of "conquering" or "subduing" or "ruling over" Nature and do more that supports the very picture you posted.

Jay Angler wrote:

Jon Crossen wrote:Anyway, we weren't planning to "treat" anything (if thats what you meant by "do no harm") - just keen to get a greater understanding of the biology happening under foot!

Dear no! I meant that Nature meant to do no harm by the white stuff it grew in your garden, just like the slime mold meant no harm to my tomatoes. I agree that the more we understand things, the more we can keep trying to work symbiotically with nature.

Oh absolutely! Nature doesn't make "mistakes," I don't believe a plant has ever grown in the wrong place or that a disease is ever a "problem" in nature - only when we apply human needs and obsession to dominate.

As in totally stable, or just "more stable"? I'm not sure that "totally stable" is even my goal? Living on the North Wet Coast, I see the fluctuations caused by El Nino which affects our weather and I see how the balance of predator and prey shift as my area has discouraged artificial pesticides, and if you look long enough through Earth's geological history, stable on a grand scale simply isn't a realistic target!

I'd be happy if more people just opened their eyes to how Nature works *with* us and how we need to ditch the old attitude of "conquering" or "subduing" or "ruling over" Nature and do more that supports the very picture you posted.

Yeah, stability is the wrong term.

I agree with ye in a philosophical sense. It's been a fascinating journey going from a few years living essentially money-less living in permaculture-esque communities and wwoofing, to trying to apply what I've learnt in mainstream society with it's economic pressures.

Jon Crossen wrote:

I agree with ye in a philosophical sense. It's been a fascinating journey going from a few years living essentially money-less living in permaculture-esque communities and wwoofing, to trying to apply what I've learnt in mainstream society with it's economic pressures.

Let's not get me started on that subject or we'll both get booted over to the Cider Press.

That said, I was just reading something related to one of Paul's podcasts:
https://permies.com/wiki/169302/Podcast-Gardening-Farming

If you’re planning on running a permaculture farm, Paul recommends following Richard Perkins

I've watched one of Richard's videos and it made sense to me for "farming", but on the veggie side, I'm really just "gardening" so I didn't explore it further. The pressure on farmers and their land in many countries is huge, but personally, we *have* to find better ways that protect the soil while still providing farmers and farm workers a living wage or we're going to be living the Science Fiction futures where all the food is vat grown. I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that will really be as healthy and complete as eating real food grown in real soil with the help of real micro-organisms.
For example there's excitement these days about "vat grown meat - no animal needs to die". But meat is supposed to be muscle tissue, and I know enough about biology and muscles that what makes muscles useful is exercise! What makes muscle "tender" is having a poor calf chained in a box so it can't exercise, but that means it's missing out on all the micronutrients it would get from actually eating grass and forbs, so that makes me question whether vat grown would ever be as good as me raising a Muscovy duck out on my field until harvest day. Any bit of that duck I can't use, gets composted to raise my plants. But I can't make any money raising Muscovy ducks, because our laws and systems are set up for industrial farming.

Jay Angler wrote:Jon Crossen wrote:

I agree with ye in a philosophical sense. It's been a fascinating journey going from a few years living essentially money-less living in permaculture-esque communities and wwoofing, to trying to apply what I've learnt in mainstream society with it's economic pressures.

Let's not get me started on that subject or we'll both get booted over to the Cider Press.

That said, I was just reading something related to one of Paul's podcasts:
https://permies.com/wiki/169302/Podcast-Gardening-Farming

If you’re planning on running a permaculture farm, Paul recommends following Richard Perkins

I've watched one of Richard's videos and it made sense to me for "farming", but on the veggie side, I'm really just "gardening" so I didn't explore it further. The pressure on farmers and their land in many countries is huge, but personally, we *have* to find better ways that protect the soil while still providing farmers and farm workers a living wage or we're going to be living the Science Fiction futures where all the food is vat grown. I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that will really be as healthy and complete as eating real food grown in real soil with the help of real micro-organisms.
For example there's excitement these days about "vat grown meat - no animal needs to die". But meat is supposed to be muscle tissue, and I know enough about biology and muscles that what makes muscles useful is exercise! What makes muscle "tender" is having a poor calf chained in a box so it can't exercise, but that means it's missing out on all the micronutrients it would get from actually eating grass and forbs, so that makes me question whether vat grown would ever be as good as me raising a Muscovy duck out on my field until harvest day. Any bit of that duck I can't use, gets composted to raise my plants. But I can't make any money raising Muscovy ducks, because our laws and systems are set up for industrial farming.

Yeah, I have that book on order. I'm intriuged to read it - I've heard fairly... "mixed" things about Richard Perkins.

I'm 100% on the same page as you! I've been lucky to find myself in part of the farming community that deeply cares about these issues. Many have permaculture backgrounds, or at least an appreciation of it.

For now I'm not going to be running a farm any time soon - one of the ironies of getting into this world at a relatively young age is I didn't spend a few decades accumulating the capital to be able "own" land. The only real possibility I have of being able to have a stable place and project will be some form of collective ownership or some miraculously fortuitous circumstances (I do know of a few older land owners who are being more considerate about making sure their resource ends up with someone who wants to do the right thing).
I say ironic as many of the prolific and amazing permaculturists I've met have come to it after at least short term career that was sufficient to afford them the ability to "buy" land (or had generational wealth). Obviously my anecdote is just my own experience and subjective, so I don't mean to paint all with the same brush. I also say ironic, as many express envy of myself having landed here early-ish in life, and how much more they feel they'd have been able to do if they'd started earlier and with more years of fully able bodies!

Anyway, veering way off topic!

Jon Crossen wrote:

I do know of a few older land owners who are being more considerate about making sure their resource ends up with someone who wants to do the right thing

Have you had a look at that PEP program? https://permies.com/wiki/skip-pep-bb
The basic concept is to do typical farm/homesteading/life skills and document them with whatever pictures the specific BB for the skill asks for. The bigger picture is that it is essentially free 3rd party proof that you actually know how to *do* stuff, rather than just book-learning or talk a good line. It is focused on what works on Paul's land which can be an issue for a few things, but there's so much choice that you might find plenty of things you're doing anyway that you can document. Some are dead easy beginner stuff, but some are complex, advanced skills. The idea is that you'd be able to show a retiring farmer a picture resume of things you've done and possibly convince them to allow you something like a rent-to-own arrangement, or as the program was originally instigated over - be written into the will as the future land-owner.

Jon Crossen wrote:
However, I still understood that you don't really see hyphae on myco fungi? Again, happy to be corrected!

I agree I don't think it's parasitic!

Agreed that if it were parasitic, the roots themselves would likely look very sick....from water-soaked to brown to black typically.

Pretty sure also that, for the fungi under consideration, you are probably seeing mycelia/mycelium with your naked eye.  Under a microscope, each of those white fungal tufts would be comprised of thousands of hyphae, the collection of which create the mycelium.  The illustration below provides the gist of it....but probably still doesn't answer the question of just what specifically it is that you have on those roots.  Good luck!

It is EXTREMELY difficult to identify by mycelium alone. However, you can actually use CRISPR kits to genetically sequence it and compare it to something on GenBank...then you could probably get an answer!

Some folks like Alan Rockefeller have been doing this intensively for several years at this point. In fact, much of the recent progress in the field of mycotaxonomy has been made this way!

...

The most I've ever done is mailed an Amanita amerirubescens specimen to Rod Tulloss for an Amanitaceae taxonomy project a few years ago. So I'm not really an expert on the process, just aware that it can be  done.

I know I've read, (but can't remember where) of some some fungi that are *known* to be parasitic, are in fact only parasitic in *some* circumstances. Apparently under some conditions, they may actually be fulfilling a symbiotic role.

Sounds like some wood digesting fungi ("conks" etc), that apparently work like endophytes (symbiosis) while the host is healthy, and make the switch to parasitic when the host tree is dying anyway to be able to spread their spores... Fungi are cool.

Mycelium is super beneficial for more nutrients and enhanced crop.

Mycelium Running  by Paul Stamets
good stuff