Can anyone tell me...

wulkowicz

wulkowicz

Location
yes
Where in nature or in nature's biologies, does she use averages? I think she operates in between extremes or "edges", while we make these mathematical pontifications like averages, fractions and percentages.

Nature does like Fibonacci numbers and other mathematical dalliances, but we seem out of step with our I/3 rules and dogmas.. Is there a yet-to-be found tree cell that does calculations just like we do?


Wondering Tubs (or more likely wandering tubs)
 
screw the 1/3 rule dude. that is just a rough guideline for "new to treework guys" to follow. im sure i could speak on behalf of alot of tree buzzers here. taking the time to study how the specific tree species in your area react to certain amounts of pruning sets you appart from any other "tree guy" out there. im not a CA but i know my home tree species verry well and how they react to pruning. i honestly think the 1/3 rule is pointless because that does not cover the age, height, location, elevation, soil conditions and sun exposure. those all greatly affect the amount of pruning a tree can take at any one given time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Where in nature or in nature's biologies, does she uses averages?

[/ QUOTE ]

The part where we believe we are separate from nature and everything
else
blush.gif
.

jp
grin.gif
laugh.gif
 
Nature doesn't use averages and the like, it's a tool to help us understand what we are see in the world. That's it. Does the average remain the same? Not likely, it moves with the size, demography and geography of the sample.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Nature doesn't use averages and the like, it's a tool to help us understand what we are see in the world. That's it. Does the average remain the same? Not likely, it moves with the size, demography and geography of the sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question had two parts:

The First: To ask honestly if anyone could think of areas or particulars where nature averaged something for her purposes. EG., would a volunteer tree not grow at some location because the average temperatures, rainfalls, or whatever did not fit the volunteer's future needs? I leave that question still open--does nature average?

The second, more lurky questtion: To respectfully disagree with your quote, I get the sense that it has been a "tool" (especially in this field) that generally keeps us from seeing the world.

We have little mathematical niches we favor and little blindspots that seduce us in making decisions and producing "standards." We rarely say 1/10 of anything because it's too small to seem meaningful. We like 1/3rd's because that seems effective enough, but still restrained and under control.

In truth, as you point out, an "average" would vary with particulars and a next set of specifics could easily produce a significantly different outcome. But that's not good if I'm writing instructions, or a standard--in fact, it becomes dangerously close to saying I don't know; I can't really predict.

Our business is filled with rules and factoid-digestable pontifications about our clients (trees, not people with checkbooks.).

1/3rd seems more trustable than 3/5ths , doesn't it?

Do we have any 3/5ths instructions for fixing trees?


bobw
jiggy.gif
 
In response to the first query, I do not think the question is a fair one. You are asking if nature does something that is distinctly anthropocentric. That would be akin to asking if nature was moral. Math is a system devised by humans to simply complex systems around us, usually natural ones. Sure, it can be absolutely verified and proven but that does not mean that nature requires calculations to function. For example, a mathematical proof is just as valid in base 8 as in base 10, one is just easier for us to understand. That isn't to say that nature doesn't function on the 'principle' of averages.

Batesian mimickry is one example where a harmless species resembles a dangerous/toxic one so that it will be avoided by its predators. The average number of the harmless species that the predator encounters must remain low in order for this technique to work properly. The predator will not take the chance if there is a 1 in 100 chance that they have the safe one to eat. Should the species by too successful and this ratio creep up towards 50:50 then this camouflage technique will stop functioning correctly and they will begin to be predated.

The idea that nature is in perfect balanced harmony is an illusion. It is a series of periods of constant change and fluctuation punctuated by epic catastrophy. Only by playing the averages game do species take risks that pay off and prosper, for a while...
 
Dang Matt, that nailed it. We are stuck to using numbers because they fit our brains. Nothing wrong with people using numbers as a starting point (guideline) when we really need guidance. Trouble comes when we use numbers as ending points (rules).

But some numbers never seem to work, even as guidelines. As Nelda Matheny said quite nicely at the last ISA conference, t/r <.3, developed for wall thickness of pipes, does not work for trees, because trees are not pipes.

Duh, you say? Tell that to risk assessment standard writers, and diehard practitioners, who are used by tools and rules, instead of vice versa.
 
[ QUOTE ]
screw the 1/3 rule dude. that is just a rough guideline for "new to treework guys" to follow. im sure i could speak on behalf of alot of tree buzzers here. taking the time to study how the specific tree species in your area react to certain amounts of pruning sets you appart from any other "tree guy" out there. im not a CA but i know my home tree species verry well and how they react to pruning. i honestly think the 1/3 rule is pointless because that does not cover the age, height, location, elevation, soil conditions and sun exposure. those all greatly affect the amount of pruning a tree can take at any one given time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not "take the time to study" for your CA? That will "set you apart from "many other "tree guys" out there". And then your opinions may hold more water.

The 1/3 rule has some valadity as a starting point with many other variables entering into the equation of decisions. Guy, with you lovin on the 1/3 rule from the top on cable installations do we not have 1/3 rule selective indignation?[-;

What about the CRZ as an example of starting points as there is no exact science in many of these endeavors, they all must be tempored with knowledge and experience (and research ofcourse). With The 1/3 rule on thresholds involving decay impasses for stem strength falling seemingly by the wayside what are we left with?

You cannot xray the soil for root locations in estimating CRZ just as you cannot scope or quantify the entire trunk and codoms on huge trees with suspect decay situations.

Picturing yourself in court at some point in time could make some of these 1/3rd rules a future potential friend.
 
It does all come back to what is accepted norms when the need for impartial judgement occurs. Since the courts are the forum for that they need to have a reference point that establishes a point of departure. Sure, there are mitigating factors that modify the norm. This is where the expert comes in. They can then explain whether the work performed is within the parameters.

It's the lazy person who applies a general rule of thumb as an absolute.
 
Averages are used to find... normal. Normal doesn't actually exist though because if it did, we wouldn't need averages. I don't think nature calculates in the human sense but molecular volume, gradient, structural limits, etc. are measurable and control plant behavior. Math was derived from observation of nature, its an insufficient attempt at describing nature specifically. So, no, I don't believe nature averages in the mathematical sense.

In my opinion, the one third guideline is based on the golden mean which nothing more than an early recognition of chaotic patterns. It's not exact since chaotic systems are effected by the infinite variety of variables surrounding and permeating them. It's an excellent rule of thumb for tree workers though because the approximation of natural behavior is extremely close.

Only observation and experience (and attending good workshops) allow one to recognize when it doesn't apply in say, a pruning situation. Research is handy too but subjective research is dodgy and has to be taken with a dose of critical thought.

Damn good questions.
 
[ QUOTE ]


The First: To ask honestly if anyone could think of areas or particulars where nature averaged something for her purposes. EG., would a volunteer tree not grow at some location because the average temperatures, rainfalls, or whatever did not fit the volunteer's future needs? I leave that question still open--does nature average?



[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of averages is a human construct that helps us sort out ideas we have of how things appear. It's a legitimate basis for description .

But we may use it as the basis for action , as a tool in some examples given previously - like pruning doses etc. This is not necessarily helpful and could lead to thoughtlessness.

Bob's quote above makes me think of the question not in terms of averages but in terms of genetic variability. I think that organisms on the edge of their natural habitat, lets a call it a pioneer habitat are tested genetically by swings and changes in their 'pioneer' habitats, and therfore these areas, opreating outside our notion of 'averages' are the real cauldrons of evolution.

I respectfully hope this is not considered a derail.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In response to the first query, I do not think the question is a fair one. You are asking if nature does something that is distinctly anthropocentric. That would be akin to asking if nature was moral. Math is a system devised by humans to simply complex systems around us, usually natural ones. Sure, it can be absolutely verified and proven but that does not mean that nature requires calculations to function. For example, a mathematical proof is just as valid in base 8 as in base 10, one is just easier for us to understand. That isn't to say that nature doesn't function on the 'principle' of averages.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We act as if nature follows our understandings and instructions, but, if she did she'd be unaccomplished, simplistic, and out of luck as the grand master of interwoven living things.

I think most of percentages, averages, and the like are comfortable shelters for us to hide in instead of recognizing the broad complexities that nature has and continues to create. I think most are bogus in that sense, and arrogant-species-centric.

[ QUOTE ]
Batesian mimickry is one example where a harmless species resembles a dangerous/toxic one so that it will be avoided by its predators. The average number of the harmless species that the predator encounters must remain low in order for this technique to work properly. The predator will not take the chance if there is a 1 in 100 chance that they have the safe one to eat. Should the species by too successful and this ratio creep up towards 50:50 then this camouflage technique will stop functioning correctly and they will begin to be predated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, interestingly. We assumed that the "big eyes" on butterflies and such, frightened away predators for fear of being eaten themselves... Then we found the visual patters we "saw" were not in spectral ranges of the various players: they saw ultra-violet and infra-reds and could never realize that those "imitation" images were big things waiting for a meal.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that nature is in perfect balanced harmony is an illusion. It is a series of periods of constant change and fluctuation punctuated by epic catastrophy. Only by playing the averages game do species take risks that pay off and prosper, for a while...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops Disagree again. Nature effectively operates edge to edge. An enzyme operates inside a temperature range; above or below, it doesn't work. There may be some fuzziness to the edges, but if a life process depends on that enzyme--what's an organism's function to do?

I think we're mistaking the edge-to-edge movements as averages. I found a few articles, including one in Science Journal, that discusses the northern migration increases for seemingly all species. Is it global warming? Are they fleeing heat? Is cold and altitude the other edge of tolerance?

Hey, I just noticed as a non-typer that putting the N right next to the M makes it really to type GLOBAL WARNING just as easily as GLOBAL WARMING...

Hmmm.



bob
jiggy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Bob's quote above makes me think of the question not in terms of averages but in terms of genetic variability. I think that organisms on the edge of their natural habitat, lets a call it a pioneer habitat are tested genetically by swings and changes in their 'pioneer' habitats, and therfore these areas, opreating outside our notion of 'averages' are the real cauldrons of evolution.

I respectfully hope this is not considered a derail.

[/ QUOTE ]

----------------------------

I'm going to respond more specifically to your post, but may I comment first on your tag line?


"Ships in harbour are safe, but that's not what ships are built for." John Shedd"


That makes me ask my own question: "Trees make excellent lumber, but is that what trees were made for?"


bob
 
Where in nature or in nature's biologies, does she use averages? I think she operates in between extremes or "edges", while we make these mathematical pontifications like averages, fractions and percentages."

Well if they are pontifications then they are overdone by definition, unless we claim a direct connection to Divine Truth, in which case we are ready for the rubber room with the rest of the Messiahs. So the ? was skewed from the getgo, apparently.

[ QUOTE ]

The 1/3 rule has some valadity as a starting point with many other variables entering into the equation of decisions. Guy, with you lovin on the 1/3 rule from the top on cable installations do we not have 1/3 rule selective indignation?[-;

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang, busted by Mr. Shaw! I don't need a conscience as long as Jiminy Dave Cricket is on my shoulder!
cool.gif


I've wondered the same; and offer up my best defense--this is the End, this is the End, of the Innocence:

Like Chip said, it's first step in sorting out chaos. I have it in my head when looking at the whole tree and all its variables.

Like Nelda said, trees are not pipes, and besides trunk wall thickness as a risk criterion is wholly dependent on load, adaptive growth, exposure, and a zillion other factors. Besides, <20% of tree failures are trunk failures, so it's a minor risk factor to start with.

Hope that suffices, Jiminy. Good advice to poor josh, who may do well to ponder it while in the doghouse.
blush.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Where in nature or in nature's biologies, does she use averages? I think she operates in between extremes or "edges", while we make these mathematical pontifications like averages, fractions and percentages."

Well if they are pontifications then they are overdone by definition, unless we claim a direct connection to Divine Truth, in which case we are ready for the rubber room with the rest of the Messiahs. So the ? was skewed from the getgo, apparently.

[ QUOTE ]

The 1/3 rule has some valadity as a starting point with many other variables entering into the equation of decisions. Guy, with you lovin on the 1/3 rule from the top on cable installations do we not have 1/3 rule selective indignation?[-;

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang, busted by Mr. Shaw! I don't need a conscience as long as Jiminy Dave Cricket is on my shoulder!
cool.gif


I've wondered the same; and offer up my best defense--this is the End, this is the End, of the Innocence:

Like Chip said, it's first step in sorting out chaos. I have it in my head when looking at the whole tree and all its variables.

Like Nelda said, trees are not pipes, and besides trunk wall thickness as a risk criterion is wholly dependent on load, adaptive growth, exposure, and a zillion other factors. Besides, <20% of tree failures are trunk failures, so it's a minor risk factor to start with.

Hope that suffices, Jiminy. Good advice to poor josh, who may do well to ponder it while in the doghouse.
blush.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Damn Guyzer, you broke the "1/3rd rule" on fraction of a year in responding to a post lol.
santa.gif


"Don't swim within an hour of eating" "leaves of 3 beware of thee" "don't run with scissors in your hand" etc etc

not absolutes ofcourse. Just suggestions involving an outcome of potential impending havoc. These, like some of our ANSI friends, are shoulds as opposed to shalls.

Nobody said you gotta cut off a third, just when you pass that threshold you may be playing with danger (for these giant plants not us).
 
Good discussion! In my research work, I usually argue against the use of averages. In nature, it's peak events that govern more than average or mean events.
*But* if we look at averages as thresholds for probabilities, they do have value. If we look at breaking strength of a board, we can say that the load to break most similar boards is such-and-such. As we test the breaking strength we will find some variation in load capacity. Then sometimes we will find that that variation can be attributed to grain angle or knots or something else. Then we can use that info to sort the pile of boards into piles with different mean breaking strengths. Of course, trees are far more complicated than boards!

This has been the western approach to science. There is so much variation in nature, much of it very beautiful, that someone like me is tempted to say "there's no way to know anything". But that's not true either, we can work from the extremes towards the central tendency (which may or may not be in the middle!). As mentioned above, 1/3 is more than a little and less than half, which may well be a good starting point. But it may not be where we need to end up!
 
We are the conduits of complexity in the tree world for the lay person. Averages provide a means for us to communicate in a language the client is familiar with, to wit, "on average, we don't remove more than 1/3 of the crown when pruning." People understand the concept of averages, this produces the "ah ha" moment. So, we can then further state how the particular specimen being discussed varies from the average, "due to the age, species and, (whatever other factors you may have identified in this case), I would recommend taking less/more or sticking to a third."

To say that it is an absolute only demonstrates one's lack of grasp on the realities of dealing with nature.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We are the conduits of complexity ...

[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif


I know bob can relate to that..

Leaves of 3, let it be, is the version i use.

that point in between may not be the average, good point sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom