Talk:Dry rot

Sources of water
19-09-2006 Removed a contribution by Anthony Appleyard:

"the fungi can remain active in the dry because they make water by oxidizing the wood."

The oxidation of cellulose by any fungus using the brown rot decay mechanism requires water, although the exact mechanism of decay is not fully understood. Further information at:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1997/green97b.pdf#search=%22brown%20rot%20decay%20mechanism%22

-Frederick Green III's work on the mechanism is really interesting. Additionally:

http://virtual.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/1996/P268.pdf#search=%22brown%20rot%20decay%20mechanism%22

provides a good overview, although it's 10years old now.

Regardless of how the specifics of how the mechanism works, there is no evidence that S. lacrymans or M incrassata have modified it to the extent they no longer require the presence of water. The practice of killing S. lacrymans in some situations within buildings by the removal of water is well established.

antifreeze - two different chemicals
"Commercial anti-freeze is also very effective at preventing dry rot formation as well as killing the fungus." -current article

"Nontoxic propylene glycol antifreeze is useless against rot and insects because it is nontoxic." -Dave Carnell

WP articles should not refer to plain "antifreeze". There are now two chemicals commonly used for car antifreeze. Ethylene glycol is traditional, more toxic, and reduces wood rot. The newer propylene glycol is less toxic and apparently much less effective against wood rot.-96.237.78.13 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusion on the term Dry Rot
(1) There is some confusion on the use of the term "dry rot". Because of historical usage of the term, some incorrectly think that any significant decay or rotting of wood that results in a darker cracked condition is called "dry rot". The correct term for that is "brown rot".

The term "dry rot" as it's presently used refers only to a type of brown rot from a very limited number of wood destroying fungi (and in particular Serpula lacrymans) that can decay wood in a relatively dry condition by providing it's own source of moisture and nutrients.

(2) Even then some question the use of terms like "dry rot" and "true dry rot" as the wood being attacked is actually not dry. Forest Products Laboratory notes that a more correct description would be "water conducting fungi" in the brown rot category, but that term is apparently not widely used or accepted.

(3) Forest Products Laboratory has excellent information on the topic. Also a publication by Forest Products Laboratory titled "Wood Handbook - Wood as an Engineering Material" has a chapter on biodeterioration of wood, including a discussion of brown rot and dry rot.

USDA wood handbook

(4) Some edits were made to try and clarify this issue, and also to clean up the appearance of the article. 6/20/11 RJ

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.23.15 (talk • contribs) 20 June 2011


 * (1) This is entirely untrue and unsupported in any scientific literature. No wood-decay fungus can 'self sustain' itself by producing it's own water or transferring it from a another and use it to wet up dry timber. There's not a shred of evidence that Serpula lacrymans or any other fungus can do this.


 * (2) Again, all fungi conduct water, but none can use that water to wet up dry wood


 * (3) That link is terrible unsubstantiated science. There are no references in the paragraphs relating to 'water conducting fungi'- it should be viewed as the author's opinion. It may well be a federal document, but it's under-researched and poorly substantiated.


 * (4) Regurgitation of of unsubstantiated opinion is not clarification. Those edits should be removed.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk • contribs) 30 November 2011


 * The proper way to deal with such issues is to use a neutral point of view and say something like: according to XX, S. Lacrymans transports water to wet up wood. However, research YY and ZZ has shown that this is not the case. I've given it a try on the article page; now it's up to you to provide a reference for the statement that the fungus does not wet up dry wood. I think I have seen statements that suggest that it does in several sources (online and in a printed mushroom book). Han-Kwang (t) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Timber decay in buildings: the conservation approach to treatment By Brian Ridout pages 84 and 85

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0hkU03rta7UC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=%22d#v=onepage&q=%22d&f=false

"There is no doubt that the mycelium strands of dry rot do conduct liquid, but this is largely a nutrient solution that distributes essential products around the fungus. Any ability to wet up timber by this method is very limited." Next paragraph gives a reference by extrapolation. It's still arguable that Ridout's book is opinion, and he certainly has COI, but equally, he's a expert in the field.

Personal theory based on research with good access to texts is that the mis-interpretation in academic references stems from a reference to dry rot being able to do this feat in the book: Serpula lacrymans: fundamental biology and control strategies. 1991. Jennings, D.H. and Bravery, A.F. where they give Coggins' PhD thesis as a reference. The thesis investigates the fungus' ability to move water, but Jennings and Bravery seem to have over-extrapolated the findings. Every time the 'wet-up' statement is referenced, if at all, it goes back to that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Corrected references:

(2) Schilling, J.S. Jellison, J. 2007 Extraction and translocation of calcium from gypsum during wood biodegradation by oxalate-producing fungi. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. Vol. 60. No. 1. p8-15

(3) Schilling, J.S. & Bissonette, K.M. 2008 Iron and calcium translocation from pure gypsum and iron-amended gypsum by two brown rot fungi and a white rot fungus. Holzforschung Vol. 62, No. 6, p752–758

Schilling did not publish any papers in Holzforschung in 2009. From the abstract, I think is the intended reference. Verifications available here:

http://www.reference-global.com/action/doSearch?pubType=journal&filter=single&journalCode=hfsg&publication=40000432&fulltext=schilling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I invite you to correct the text on the article page. If you feel uncomfortable doing that, I could give it a try, but I think you know the facts better than I do. Hints:
 * avoid discussing your personal theory; just mention what the references say.
 * More about how too make footnote-style references: WP:FN
 * Han-Kwang (t) 21:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you did so in the meantime. Thanks. Now you could consider creating a user account, before your shared IP address gets blocked again due to kids vandalizing pages. Han-Kwang (t) 14:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)