Dead (and Undead) Wood

[cerviarborist]

Respectfully, I'm not sure what TreeVB means with respect to "completely trust CODIT". CODIT is a model for the concerted set of processes within the wood of living trees to resist the spread of the effects of injury and infection. Yep, some tree species invest a lot in compartmentalization, some not so much. And a starved individual tree may not perform as well as expected for the species in good health. Indeed, the CODIT walls buy time to restore lost sapwood function and the continuity of the vascular cambium. All trees die, all wood rots (in the greater conceptual fullness).
I do trust that CODIT provides a lot of explaining power. We don't know how all of the components work moment-to-moment, and there is species/environmental variation. But the relative strengths of W1-4 are pretty clear for most cases. Part of the challenge in teaching compartmentalization and CODIT is that Shigo used gross anatomical features for largely symplastic processes. If anyone is still reading, the sort-of-recent article by Hugh Morris here is a pretty good treatment to which I provided a published commentary here. Apologies, I've probably posted this before in TB, maybe even this thread!

No apology needed Kevin. I've never read a post of yours, which didn't rate re-reading!

 

[Daniel]

Respectfully, I'm not sure what TreeVB means with respect to "completely trust CODIT". CODIT is a model for the concerted set of processes within the wood of living trees to resist the spread of the effects of injury and infection. Yep, some tree species invest a lot in compartmentalization, some not so much. And a starved individual tree may not perform as well as expected for the species in good health. Indeed, the CODIT walls buy time to restore lost sapwood function and the continuity of the vascular cambium. All trees die, all wood rots (in the greater conceptual fullness).
I do trust that CODIT provides a lot of explaining power. We don't know how all of the components work moment-to-moment, and there is species/environmental variation. But the relative strengths of W1-4 are pretty clear for most cases. Part of the challenge in teaching compartmentalization and CODIT is that Shigo used gross anatomical features for largely symplastic processes. If anyone is still reading, the sort-of-recent article by Hugh Morris is a pretty good treatment to which I provided a published commentary here. Apologies, I've probably posted this before in TB, maybe even this thread!

This one is worth another look...


Question I've been meaning to ask you, KT...


Do you think trees are intelligent ?

in other words do they make intelligent decisions... from my perspective it seems pretty obvious that the answer is yes. even something as simple as when to drop their leaves...


And of course it's been shown that they communicate, share resources etc. All signs of intelligence..

So if you agree then by what mechanism does their intelligence function?

if they are highly sophisticated in their decision making as they appear to be, and yet perform without a central nervous system. then what are the implications. What does that tell us about creation?

 

[KTSmith]

Thanks Daniel for the question. To me, the quick answer is "Yes, to be sure".
The more scholarly answer requires some examination of science history and philosophy. The root word for "intelligence" conveys the sense of being capable of learning new stuff. Historically, human intelligence has been variously defined to support the "uniqueness" of humanity or even certain subdivisions of humanity. Often that was to support the dominance of humans or some subset of humans to dominate everybody or everything else. More recently, plant and animal intelligence has been promoted, but usually from an anthropomorphic point of view. The latter is usually nonsense.
We all know trees respond to stuff. Pruning causes specific, measurable responses to recover or increase photosynthetic activity. But is that learned behavior or simply using a different part of the genetic program? That is an interesting question but is it relevant? Can trees successfully respond to entirely new situations? Well, can anybody? From the human perspective, much of what is taken as intelligence is simply a conditioned response to programming. Do they teach B.F. Skinner anymore in Psych 101?
Yes, I know human behaviorists and philosophers make distinctions on different kinds of intelligence and that is the sort of work they do.
I am cautious about putting a human-centric filter on to what we learn from trees. The whole concept of the importance of individuality and individual success has little relevance, as I understand trees.
As for botanical research on the topic, the Calvo 2019 paper is probably a good place to start. I've attached it because I don't think it is "open-access".

 

[DSMc]

...
Do you think trees are intelligent ?

in other words do they make intelligent decisions... from my perspective it seems pretty obvious that the answer is yes...

Please feel free to elaborate on your definition of intelligence.

For my understanding of what defines intelligence, the answer is no. Trees can not leap across information voids.

Trees are highly adaptive and capable of complex interactions due to preprogrammed genome response sequencing abilities. Much closer to an instinctive response than cognitive extrapolation.

 

[evo]

I like the turn this thread is going.
Before trees and Arboriculture, my pet project was reptiles and Herpetoculture. It was a grueling revelation that there is a genetic intelligence. It's a common misconception that modern reptiles are evolutionary relics that are simple animals, the work of Brian Fry helped to blow that theory out of the water (http://www.venomdoc.com for anyone interested).
This is not exclusive to trees or reptiles, but to articulate my point using reptiles. Many lizards have a modified third optical nerve running to a scale on the center top of their head, its theorized that this is a sensory organ to "read" UVB light (essential to their production of vit D3 for the metabolism of calcium). Most reptiles have a Jakobson organ, that allows them to 'taste' the world around them. We all know many snakes have 'heat pits' that allow them to sense the thermo world, but many can thermo regulate by changing their skin pigmentation. It's not abnormal to see bilateral color change in chameleons (lighter colors on the warm side, and darker on the cool side). Complex changes in blood flow to direct temperature differences, either when basking, or to cool off, or incubating a clutch of eggs. Many can be trained, in a entirely different way than dogs..
Yes, small brains, but massively complex nervous systems.
There is a intelligence of such highly specialized niche evolution that beyond the complexity of human understanding. We need to redefine intelligence, not only within the individual organism but within the greater 'system'. Look at the relationship of fungi and trees, how fucken smart is that?!
Time to empty the dumpster of dogma, such as 'I think there for, I am'...

 

[Daniel]

I would say intelligence is shown by the ability to make decisions and using information to make those decisions... we also know that trees have means of communication, which is another sign of intelligence.

from:

Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees

Plants communicate, nurture their seedlings, and get stressed.

nautil.us

 

[DSMc]

Unfortunately, the facts and truths scientists find are inextricably tied to the vocabularies and paradigms used to represent them.

The complexity in describing movement and purpose within
the biosphere and phyllosphere is less about what is happening but our inability to not use animism or anthropomorphic terminology when trying to express the 'hows'.

My belief is that trying to simplify the complex biochemical and DNA coding held within individual species or complete systems, by saying it must be a 'brain' or 'intelligence' is in actuality, dumbing down our understanding not expanding it.

 

[Naturalway]

Someone high up in the IBM corporation was once quoted "We trust in God, All Others must bring data".

The green industry has been horrible in using anecdotal observations to justify various work from aeration to flush cuts.

 

[Daniel]

Somethings just don't lend themselves to the scientific process... trees are certainly in that category

 

[dmonn]

Very true Daniel. The slow growth rate and large size at maturity are just two things that come to mind.

The amount of reforestation in my part of Wisconsin within my lifetime is incredible. I have looked at air photos for this area from 1951 (birth year) and compared them to Google Earth now. In 1951 there were very few forested areas. Most farms had just a fence between plots of cropland, and only small wooded areas. The little village I grew up in had almost no trees visible in the photos. Now all the farms have large wooded strips between most plots plus extensive wooded areas. The village now looks like a forest from all the street trees and mature trees in the yards. The concerning thing is all the dead ash trees. Quite a difference in 71 years.

 

[evo]

Somethings just don't lend themselves to the scientific process... trees are certainly in that category

I see your point but it's a little backwards, it's all there right in-front of us, but the limitation of variables we still have yet to understand or control (including time scales) does not lend itself to our ability to execute the scientific process. The process isn't flawed, its our abilities that are.

 

[dmonn]

I see your point but it's a little backwards, it's all there right in-front of us, but the limitation of variables we still have yet to understand or control (including time scales) does not lend itself to our ability to execute the scientific process. The process isn't flawed, its our abilities that are.

Exactly. I thought that was what Daniel was trying to say. But then Evo, you speak "left coast", and Daniel speaks "right coast". Maybe you need a "middle coast" translator to communicate. Remember, I speak "Wisconsin nice".

 

[Naturalway]

If arborists want more credibility and knowledge, which has been and is often lacking, then the scientific method is the only path. The lack of scientific data is attributable to one factor, availability or rather the lack of resources ie. money and a lack of ROI.

Why do research to prove or disprove something when money is to be made without incurring such costs? That has been the predominant weakness of thought within the green industry.

Do we not study the universe because of its size and age? Or quarks because they are too small and fleeting?

We really need to get out of this thinking that trees are so special and unique, they are not, and doing so results in apathetic attitudes toward arboricultural knowledge. Why bother? Because bothering is worth the bother. Knowing is better than thinking it so.

I recently read a quote from Carl Sagan that is applicable here "Somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known". The question is who and how is that something incredible going to be discovered? To say it's too hard, too big, or too difficult is to fail without even trying.

And to say the scientific process does not apply to trees, well, all the great arborists/foresters would say you are dead wrong including Alex Shigo, John Davey, Francis Bartlett, Gifford Pichot, Aldo Leopold, and John Muir among many others.

 

[dmonn]

If arborists want more credibility and knowledge, which has been and is often lacking, then the scientific method is the only path. The lack of scientific data is attributable to one factor, available or rather the lack of resources ie. money and a lack of ROI.

Why do research to prove or disprove something when money is to be made without incurring such costs? That has been the predominant weakness of thought within the green industry.

Do we not study the universe because of its size and age? Or quarks because they are too small and fleeting?

We really need to get out of this thinking that trees are so special and unique, they are not, and doing so results in apathetic attitudes toward arboricultural knowledge. Why bother? Because bothering is worth the bother. Knowing is better than thinking it so.

I recently read a quote from Carl Sagan that is applicable here "Somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known". The question is who and how is that something incredible going to be discovered? To say it's too hard, too big, or too difficult is to fail without even trying.

And to say the scientific process does not apply to trees, well, all the great arborists/foresters would say you are dead wrong including Alex Shigo, John Davey, Francis Bartlett, Gifford Pichot, Aldo Leopold, and John Muir among many others.

I don't think anybody said the scientific method doesn't apply to trees. I think what was intended was to say that applying the scientific method to trees is difficult for the reasons listed. That's how I interpreted "doesn't lend itself to trees" to mean.

 

[Daniel]

If arborists want more credibility and knowledge, which has been and is often lacking, then the scientific method is the only path. The lack of scientific data is attributable to one factor, availability or rather the lack of resources ie. money and a lack of ROI.

Why do research to prove or disprove something when money is to be made without incurring such costs? That has been the predominant weakness of thought within the green industry.

Do we not study the universe because of its size and age? Or quarks because they are too small and fleeting?

We really need to get out of this thinking that trees are so special and unique, they are not, and doing so results in apathetic attitudes toward arboricultural knowledge. Why bother? Because bothering is worth the bother. Knowing is better than thinking it so.

I recently read a quote from Carl Sagan that is applicable here "Somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known". The question is who and how is that something incredible going to be discovered? To say it's too hard, too big, or too difficult is to fail without even trying.

And to say the scientific process does not apply to trees, well, all the great arborists/foresters would say you are dead wrong including Alex Shigo, John Davey, Francis Bartlett, Gifford Pichot, Aldo Leopold, and John Muir among many others.

you left one out...

the scientist that tried to climb trees, called for 4 wraps on a side loaded, lightning struck top, and promptly killed himself.

Shigo also made a fallacious assumption that created 50 years of misguided pruning recommendations. And that assumption has yet to be questioned by the scientific concensus in the industry.

and there is no one with a PhD that has ever come close to developing the skill and understanding of tree falling and rigging as the top experts in the field, many of whom didn't graduate from high school.

 

[Naturalway]

Science is always a progression building on previous understandings and correcting misconceptions.

The exception should not make the rule. Just because one person did something with a given result means nothing except regarding that one person's consequence.

Shigo made some mistakes and misinterpreted some things, however, the advancements he brought to the tree industry were transformative and fundamentally changed the care of trees elevating it to a much higher level. Tree care in the 80's was not anything like today, it's miles better.

Many of these pruning recommendations HAVE been addressed by Dujesiefken and Liese in The CODIT Principle book, Gilman, Koder, and many others. And no doubt someone in the future will revisit and revise some more.

The Scientific Method is tried and true and has an unbeaten track record against widespread beliefs and anecdotal evidence.

Just because one is not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist which leads me to the next point...

Question everything always, especially one's own knowledge, otherwise one is prone to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Enjoy the Holidays.

 

[evo]

It's been long known about hemipenes, but look at the other side of the coin.... It wasn't too long ago, in fact right about 11 years ago when I was driving down the highway and I spewed my coffee when listening to NPR. It was one of those 'new' discovery interviews where researchers finally proved fish can feel pain, entirely real and straight faced an hour long interview about the research that finally laid the argument to bed about if fish can physically get hurt and feel pain.... We know so much, yet know so fucken little.

Snakes have a clitoris: scientists overcome ‘a massive taboo around female genitalia’

Scientists say previous research mistook the organs on female snakes as scent glands or under-developed versions of penises

www.theguardian.com

 

[Daniel]

I see your point but it's a little backwards, it's all there right in-front of us, but the limitation of variables we still have yet to understand or control (including time scales) does not lend itself to our ability to execute the scientific process. The process isn't flawed, its our abilities that are.

a matter of semantics.. no need to find fault... There is no point in debating "is it us or science that is flawed?", when the bottom line is that I and many other workers know more about tree pruning, rigging and falling than any scientist in the world. When it comes to falling and rigging trees, there is no one out there that is going to certify us. Who is going to certify MJ in basketball or Mayweather in boxing?

To your point.. yes science has limitations... it's very good at some things and useless at others... You wouldn't call a baseball bat "flawed" because it can't open a door... It's just not a good fit for the job.