Foraging Apps. A good idea or not?

There's been a little bit of nonsense in my twitter timeline about this app here. A mushroom identification app, where you allegedly point your phone at a mushroom and the phone tells you what the mushroom is. Now thats a great idea and I love it. I don't for a heartbeat think it'll work, but just because something can't be done (yet) doesn't mean I don't love the concept. But will it work? Well, no, as things stand this actually unnerves me a bit.

There is in fairness some advice on the page about this app - get a nice, big picture of the mushroom without any fingers in it. But I am a little worried that when I click on 'support' I'm sent to a tumblr. The three reviews I can see are damning.

Mushrooming is great fun and a marvellous way to get superb ingredients for free, and if you step into it bit by bit, species by species, taking advice where you need it and consulting the books where thats handy, its not as hard as all that. But it isn't just a visual thing - yes, there are species where a keen-eyed forager will tell you what something is likely to be from a car going past at 40mph (although on one occasion that wasn't a giant puffball, it was an actual football), but actually to confirm an identification can be more challenging. Those of us who've been foraging for a while have all had fuzzy photos of a mushroom from above sent to us, and had to reply that yeah, it might be (x) but we can't tell from that image. We need to see the top, the underside and the stipe (stem), we might want to know where it was growing, how big it is, what it smells like, what it feels like, whether it changes colour when you cut it, etc. One picture? That will rarely be enough.

Take the yellow stainer mushroom. Quite a varied appearance, but generally very like a horse mushroom - there are samples you'll find which are essentially indistinguishable until you pick one and bruise it, or give it a good sniff. A picture isn't enough. Take the whole Russula genus - there are single species that can be four different colours, and after a rainstorm many different species represent a serious challenge to identify, requiring chemical tests (or, sometimes, a taste test). I promise you, you're not fully differentiating them from any photograph.

There are assorted other apps and sites  that purportedly share sites and info, and I guess thats cool if its your kind of thing. Its been done various ways - there are GPS related apps where you share sites of wild food, there are shared online maps. And yeah, ok, if thsts your thing. Fine. It isn't mine though - and many experienced foragers will, I'm sure, share the same reserve (which is why I think the Cambridge map I've linked to there is so hilariously incomplete).

When you spend years looking up at trees, down at the ground, into hedges etc. you get a depth of knowledge and understanding of your local habitats few others appreciate - you learn whats good one year won't be good the next, you end up with a depth and breadth of knowledge that can't be simply replicated. And yes, the time and effort taken to achieve this does make us rather jealously guard our foraging spots - not out of fear someone else will pick, but out of fear that those who haven't put the effort in to learn won't have the same respect for our sites. The learning, the hard graft to gain knowledge, breeds respect and love for the resource. We don't fear others using the resource - we fear them ruining it. I'll share locations with other foragers who I know have the same attitude but not, ever, with a newbie who may not. I want more people who'll respect our local habitats and stand up for them, as foragers will - I don't want people who'll trample down rare orchids to get to common fairy ring mushrooms. There's a real need for understanding here.

We've a long way to go before the already incredibly powerful pocket super-computers we laughably refer to as 'phones' are able to distinguish sufficient information to safely identify mushrooms on our behalf. That in itself would be quite something. But I do worry that if foraging a wide range of species becomes too easy, we may see it done far less responsibly and sustainably. Time will tell, I suppose. But a negative impact of careless technology use on our environment? Who'd be surprised?

Musings on a Forage

We've finally had some rain here the last week or two, which is great - not only for the allotment but for shrooming.

We've had very few mushrooms this year so far - the St. Georges mushroom harvest failed entirely due to a really dry Spring, and the brackets that usually see us through Summer (dryads saddles, chicken of the woods) have been thin on the ground. Well, thin on the tree stumps. But we've had things a bit better for the last couple of weeks and finally we're getting a few shrooms.

Not a lot as yet though, but enough to be worthwhile. Last weekend was annoying, lots of cycling around for a small number of field mushrooms, horse mushrooms, wine caps and some dryads saddle - with the most prolific mushrooms being the yellow stainer. Thats not unusual in our part of Cambridge, its infuriatingly common (you can't eat it). But this weekend conditions were just right for horse mushrooms and, very pleasingly, the prince (Agaricus augustus), one of the finest wild species. Almond scented, richly flavoured, one I'll never tire of - great with pasta, wonderful with eggs, splendid accompaniment to meat. 

Princes, horse mushrooms, parasols...

We'd been out on Thurdsay for a ride around, and there were some horse mushrooms growing nicely near home. We left them to get a bit of size but when we went back on Sunday all we found was cut stumps - and a chap under some other trees plundering another of our regular patches. Fair enough, I suppose. We went over to see him but he didn't speak a word of English, and I'm left with the concern as to whether he'll pick responsibly. I'll always leave some, he didn't. I just hope he's light footed and doesn't trample things down too badly if he's going to become a regular. I'm also wondering whether in future leaving mushrooms to plump up on that patch is a good idea.

Among our quarry were some specimens of Boletus luridus - a new one for Cambridge (well, for ME in Cambridge). Common as muck some places I've lived but a first for my foraging here.

Also gathered just a few cherry plums for munching on, and noted there's loads of blackberries around already. Not a bad forage.

We had mushroom risotto last night. The dehydrator is running for some of the mushrooms, we've got a collander full in the fridge for the week ahead, and a pan cooked down for pasta sauce tonight. 

So not a bad forage. Not the best we've had at this time of year, but worth a trip out.

Roadside Trees

I've touched on the politics of roadside trees elsewhere, and I've talked about urban trees for the future here. Any of those trees make good roadside choices, depending on location. Obviously, I'm willing to defend my own choices for what trees should be planted in urban spaces (go look at that blog post), but I also wanted to discuss tree selection based on principles that ought to be applied. Yes, this is in part about City Deal in Cambridge - but I hope these thoughts might be of wider interest too.

If we're looking at roadsides, there are for me 7 key principles we need to bear in mind.

1. Pollution resistance - if it'll die in traffic fumes its no good here.

2. Salt, flooding, and drying out - in restricted soil space on a road thats gritted this is all important

3. Root damage - if the tree will rip up the road lets not plant it

4. Appearance - lets plant trees that are beautiful!

5. Growth and shade - the right tree for the right place

6. Ecology and habitat - we should at all times foster a better environment.

7. Durability - lets not plant a tree that'll die of a disease months after it goes in

Now of course every tree is good or bad for some of those points - there is no perfect urban tree. But I think we can pick out a few species that are all-rounders and we should discuss those. And yes, I'm leaving out some lovely trees that are currently not doing so well due to disease in the UK (ash and horse chestnut in particular). And some that are great urban trees but rather less suitable to roadsides.

I should stress again that these are my 'likes' - there are many other options, but I'm aiming to get a discussion going on suitable trees for planting. And I'm not ashamed to put my own views forward to do so - these choices (and the ones in the earlier post) are personal, but I think defensible. Please, join in with your own views - but have a think about whether your preferences make good choices for the location you're discussing. I'll follow this post up with something about the specific locations we're looking at in Cambridge (although that might be on the Cambridge Cubed blog).

London Plane

We all know this tree. While its typical of London streets its also planted across much of the UK, especially cities in Southern England. It puts on a lot of growth in the first few years after planting and can become a massive, spreading beast of a tree. Its famous for being disease and pollution resistant, and its entirely happy being pollarded hard (so you can cut it back and extend its lifespan massively in doing so). Thats all great.

But its really rather spreading - if you've got lots of space its good, so you want wide bits of earth with room for roots to go down and out. And it provides loads of shade - if you don't want that, don't plant it. 

Its not amazing for wildlife either - nothing particularly to eat and its not one to foster the growth of a wide range of fungi. Its not awful for insects, but not superb either. I like this tree but for my money its over-used, too big for many places, and therefore perhaps best used sparingly now.

Hornbeam

I quite like hornbeams, and they thrive on roadsides in London. There's a fastigiate (sticky up rather than spready out) form thats very popular on roadsides - that makes it a great choice if you're looking for a mid to large growing tree that doesn't shade too many things out. It has quite spreading roots but I haven't seen damage caused by this. Its great for insects and encourages fungi in the soil, and it has great autumn colour. The only word of caution would be that it rather seems to struggle in full light - its great for tightly shaded urban canyons, never seems as happy establishing itself in brighter light.

Linden

Or, lime trees. Tilia. Again, great urban trees capable of surviving in hostile environments, and which can be cut back again and again and still thrive. The commonly planted hybrid forms are near ubiquitous in England, and we all know them. They're great for insects and fungi - the only issue is perhaps they're a little TOO good for them. People complain like mad when they've parked their car under one of these in summer to come back to find sap all over the windscreen. There was a time when at Camridge Station the railway responded to that by putting the bike parking under the lime trees. Thanks guys!

They're big though - or at least have the capacity to get big. Shady, cooling, and lovely - but not for a narrow gap.

Rowan and other Sorbus

Loads of cultivars of this genus do well by roads, if they can get established. Some do well on clay (rowan), some seem happy in wetter conditions (some of the whitebeams), others are resonant of older periods in our history (wild service) - they're all middling to small trees, with blossom followed by heads of red (or orange, even green) berries. Fantastic for bids, of interest to foragers, not particularly messy, they're great for tighter spots - but they do still form a canopy. I'd like to see more varieties of Sorbus planted, they're all great fun.

Pyrus

Pear trees. Yes, I know. Go on, click on the link there and tell me you don't want to see that narrow, tallish, flowered and fruited tree by your roadsides. It can drop a bit of fruit - not like a wet mess of horrid like those ornamental crab apple trees, but some. And can struggle to get established in the driest of conditions - but its a grand tree and worth considering.

Field Maple

A native tree that does support wildlife, its not as big as its cousin the sycamore, nor is it quite as invasive. The helicopter seeds are almost as much fun as sycamore too. And it seems to survive nearly anything hurled against it. Great choice for roadsides, but, again, does need some spreading space.

Cherry/Cherry Plum etc.

You already know cherry trees. Flowers perhaps followed by fruit (and always plant a fruiting cultivar - why ever wouldn't you want beautiful berries for birds?) But have you spotted those lovely dark red leaved trees that have a fairly similar form, with red flowers and then dark red fruits? Thats a cherry plum. They're usually green leaved, with either green, yellow, red or even purple fruit following a white flower. Gorgeous trees that the birds go mad for. Then there are assorted varieties of almond and apricot worth looking at too - choosing a variety of types to add colour and interest to a planting scheme seems obviously a good idea to me.

You'll always find one of these trees that will fit in a reasonable space, and none of them are that massive. I'd urge some caution though - they're fast growing, but few really old specimens are around. They're not the very longest lived of trees - if you're wanting a treescape for your children then cherry and its cousins is a component of that but not the dominant type.

Sophora japonica

A tree that does well in a warmer climate - and as our climate warms this might be a winner. Lovely tree, and there are specimens thriving in London. Gorgeous, big flowering tree used by roadsides in some parts of the US and the far East - well worth investigating. But, again, not one for a very small space.