First, let me thank Jomoco, Frax and Blinky for jumping right back on the bicycle. I already have Suckers 1, 2, and 3 nestled in the word processor to answer each of their perspectives.
And fireaxe, originator of the thread, reminds us: My original question stands unanswered. I have unsuccessfully looked for an answer.
I intend to help with the answer, but full disclosure has me say it will be counterintuitive to most of the discussions so far. I have often found that finding things in the shadows were important routes to practical simplicities--and please remember that simplicity for me rarely equals parroting dogmatic pontifications. My task is to be accurate and persuasive.
--------------------------------
I understand (plant class was a long time ago) the cellular mechanics of how they form and what they do over time.
Why, o why, are they called water sprouts? Sorry again for the earlier misnomer. It seems to me that suckers have similar growth characteristics.
I enjoy reading the works of the biologists back in the late 1880's who first looked at different curiosities and had to find names for them. There were sometimes competitions, but those were settled out and became what we inherited. When consensus oversimplifies, we struggle with a reasonable common understanding.
-------------------------------
I am looking for a study that compares the photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity of the adventitious tissues to standardly formed tissues. This would give some insight as to why they are so dramatic in their different appearance and perhaps functional difference IF there is any difference at all.
A problem here is that you feel you already have the answer (photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity) and are looking for confirmation in one study.
You aren't going to find it; that's close to an impossible task. If it existed--and was true--it would be gobbled up in a thousand citations. That is also not me saying you are wrong in your pursuit; let's just consider some other shadows in our wanderings.
----------------------------
Has anyone ever seen a tree sucker without any prompting by an environment change?
Incidentally, I consider pruning to be an environment change for the tree. The new house, the removing of its companion tree and just about any change to the surroundings of a tree.
I can provide a number of examples--and I'll try to do that in organized sequences. Right now I'll present a core word for me: reiteration (duplication) of the woody cylinder. Choose a twig, a branch, a trunk, any woody cylinder--they are replications of the same structures, processes, and evolutions. They can absolutely differ in scale, but they are still the same duplications.
(Please note that different size duplicates will have their internal specifics scalable in the same ways.)
---------------------------------
... This example is water under pressure. The transpiration of trees is considerably more complex. Is it not still a flow problem?
Food source doesn't sit right with me. There are usually other, higher sunned areas to facilitate photosynthesis. All the energy produced is not used locally right? Something has to be sent elsewhere?
In my world, these are component variables--valid, dissectible, and the factoid subjects of many papers and studies. I don't claim to find any Holy Grail--like I said, right now I'm squinting at things that aren't quite clear.
------------------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
When there is not consensus, I get concerned. In this topic are we to work off dogma (new word for me :|)?
The goal is to have something that resembles a fact that is evident or can be similarly discovered by another person without being told. There are too few facts and way too many opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there is real value in challenging dogma; both as an exercise in critical thinking, and in delightfully discovering that something unexpected has rolled out of the shadows.
Bob Wulkowicz
And fireaxe, originator of the thread, reminds us: My original question stands unanswered. I have unsuccessfully looked for an answer.
I intend to help with the answer, but full disclosure has me say it will be counterintuitive to most of the discussions so far. I have often found that finding things in the shadows were important routes to practical simplicities--and please remember that simplicity for me rarely equals parroting dogmatic pontifications. My task is to be accurate and persuasive.
--------------------------------
I understand (plant class was a long time ago) the cellular mechanics of how they form and what they do over time.
Why, o why, are they called water sprouts? Sorry again for the earlier misnomer. It seems to me that suckers have similar growth characteristics.
I enjoy reading the works of the biologists back in the late 1880's who first looked at different curiosities and had to find names for them. There were sometimes competitions, but those were settled out and became what we inherited. When consensus oversimplifies, we struggle with a reasonable common understanding.
-------------------------------
I am looking for a study that compares the photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity of the adventitious tissues to standardly formed tissues. This would give some insight as to why they are so dramatic in their different appearance and perhaps functional difference IF there is any difference at all.
A problem here is that you feel you already have the answer (photosynthetic capacity and/or transpiration capacity) and are looking for confirmation in one study.
You aren't going to find it; that's close to an impossible task. If it existed--and was true--it would be gobbled up in a thousand citations. That is also not me saying you are wrong in your pursuit; let's just consider some other shadows in our wanderings.
----------------------------
Has anyone ever seen a tree sucker without any prompting by an environment change?
Incidentally, I consider pruning to be an environment change for the tree. The new house, the removing of its companion tree and just about any change to the surroundings of a tree.
I can provide a number of examples--and I'll try to do that in organized sequences. Right now I'll present a core word for me: reiteration (duplication) of the woody cylinder. Choose a twig, a branch, a trunk, any woody cylinder--they are replications of the same structures, processes, and evolutions. They can absolutely differ in scale, but they are still the same duplications.
(Please note that different size duplicates will have their internal specifics scalable in the same ways.)
---------------------------------
... This example is water under pressure. The transpiration of trees is considerably more complex. Is it not still a flow problem?
Food source doesn't sit right with me. There are usually other, higher sunned areas to facilitate photosynthesis. All the energy produced is not used locally right? Something has to be sent elsewhere?
In my world, these are component variables--valid, dissectible, and the factoid subjects of many papers and studies. I don't claim to find any Holy Grail--like I said, right now I'm squinting at things that aren't quite clear.
------------------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
When there is not consensus, I get concerned. In this topic are we to work off dogma (new word for me :|)?
The goal is to have something that resembles a fact that is evident or can be similarly discovered by another person without being told. There are too few facts and way too many opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe there is real value in challenging dogma; both as an exercise in critical thinking, and in delightfully discovering that something unexpected has rolled out of the shadows.
Bob Wulkowicz
.
