-
let's assume that a particular patch of land
is capable of supporting life without any
outside interference damaging that ecosystem.
(i.e.-- acts of nature such as earthquake
or flood, human interaction(s), or any other
disasterous encouter)
this patch of land already supports life
such as trees, grasses, various other plants,
some small wildlife (insects, rodents, etc)
as well as receives that adequate temperature
and weather conditions to make this patch of
land somewhat 'normal'. that is, it receives
adequate sun, rainfall, humidity, and snowfall
to never challenge the normality of this
somewhat utopian scene.
ok... i think we all can gather the image
i am trying to establish. now for my Q...
will a tree ever die?
i mean, i know that leaves and branches will
come and go because that is the natural
regenerative processes of a tree... but the
tree's existence in the ecosystem isn't
challenged.
i have presented this Q to a few other people
and haven't exactly received an answer that
is satisfactory.
one person stated that the tree would eventually
die because within its genetic code is the
inscription to continue growing.
this may be true, i argued, but, like most
genetics concerning growth, the entity will
stop (or plateau) once it has reached the
point to where further development would
seem useless.
for instance, the tree would never grow
as big as the roots could support it.
branches will continue to grow, but will never
exceed the limit beyond nurishment.
so...
i present the Q to you guys.
will a tree ever die?
-
There are giant Elms in the Oregon/Washington area that are thousands of years old.
Considering a human lifespan, that's just about "forever".
O'course, being left in a 'natural' state, would mean said tree would be vulnerable to natural ailments (tree-rot, brush fires, bark fungus, etc.). Keeping any organism in a glass bubble, shielded from 'nature', yet saying "without any outside interference damaging that ecosystem.
(i.e.-- acts of nature such as earthquake
or flood, human interaction(s), or any other
disasterous encouter)" isn't really 'natural', is it?
-
very true... i am allowing for bacterial infections
and other microscopic biological entities...
now speaking of the 1000 year old trees, those
trees are 'established'... which is what i'm
counting on.
-
hmmm... granted... i'll admit my Q is a bit
more on the sci-fi level, and prolly nothing
close to reality.
for, if it were to be experimented, it wouldn't
exactly be 'real'.
even if light sources were in question, the trees
would still stay within the range adequate for
its survival. whatever branched out and couldn't
be supported would eventually die off. but i don't
think that would kill the entire tree.
and even if many trees populated the area... and
they fought for space, one of two foreseable
situations would occur:
1) both trees would plateau and continue growing
within the allotted space.
2) one tree would win out over the other
in either case, a tree survives, giving it further
advantage to any 'new comer' tree that may attempt
to suffocate the bigger tree.
one could question root growth, but the visible
part of a tree grows as fast, if not faster,
than that below ground. therefore, the same
'war' would be going on beneath the ground as it
does above ground... making it STILL plateauing (???)
at some variable size.
the reason why i question this is because i don't
really recall seeing 'dead' trees, that is,
trees that were obviously dead because they have
'aged' well beyond an 'elderly' state.
i'm wondering if age plays a perspective in the
'life' of a tree... in the same way it would in
some animal organism.
the reason why i chose trees is because they do
not receed into the ground and regrow annually
or perinnially as most plants.
hmmm.... i just don't know.
-
You know, i've been told I'm as big as fucking tree.
and look at me! even with earthquakes, snipers, terrorists, windstorms, cold, snow, treerot, etc...
I'm gonna live forever.
So definately! if life was easier, I'd live longer than forever!
so shit!
YES!
-
I've gone back and forth on this 5 times now.
I want to say yes but at the same time I want to say no.
****************************
Yes, I think the tree would die.
-
I was talking about Redwoods, wasn't I? Not Elm.
-
hmmk, well i'm kinda short on time...but these are a few things that i found (i didnt write them...so i'm not claiming them as mine [img]biggrin.gif[/img] heheh i just thought they might be helpful in ur search for an answer...lol)
The surface area to volume ratio in living organisms is very important. Nutrients and oxygen need to diffuse through the cell membrane and into the cells. Most cells are no longer than 1mm in diameter because small cells enable nutrients and oxygen to diffuse into the cell quickly and allow waste to diffuse out of the cell quickly. If the cells were any bigger than this then it would take too long for the nutrients and oxygen to diffuse into the cell so the cell would probably not survive.
i know trees "breathe" in carbon dioxide..i just thought that the above passage might've been helpful...somehow...lol
Single celled organisms can survive as they have a large enough surface area to allow all the oxygen and nutrients they need to diffuse through. Larger multi celled organisms need specialist organs to respire such as lungs or gills.
this might be besides the point...but i thought i would stick it in here newayz... [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
The growth of a tree and its vigor depend on several factors: availability of resources, the size and species of the tree and the amount of competition for light with other trees.
hmmk...well i'm just going by what u said earlier...which is:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma"> it receives
adequate sun, rainfall, humidity, and snowfall
to never challenge the normality of this
somewhat utopian scene.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
it's pretty much a "utopian scence" right? then for a long period of time...there should be no reason for the trees to stop growing...except (eventually) each other. hmm, does that make sense? i dont know where i'm going w/ this..lol just some thoughts k? well if the trees keep growing and stuff...sooner or later...there's going to be more competition for resources and sunlight etc. (btw...this utopian place is a "patch of land"...which i take, means it is a limited space.) but as time goes by, and as the trees keep growing...the space will start to get more crowded and the competition will rise.
so i guess i have 2 questions for you...do the trees reproduce? and what happens when the space is all filled on this "patch of land"? are the trees allowed to "spread" out of this patch of land (like will the utopian space follow them? LOL sounds weird hehe) hmm...well if the trees are only limited to that utopian patch of land...i dont think they will be able to last forever. (by forever..i mean forever..not 1000 years or w/e..lol)
well those were just some random thoughts put together..i have no idea if they make any sense or not...heheh =)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma"> this patch of land already supports life
such as trees, grasses, various other plants,
some small wildlife (insects, rodents, etc)
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
do insects include termites? [img]wink.gif[/img] lol jkjk [img]tongue.gif[/img]
-
Ask Pauly Shore...he lived in the environment you speak of...Biodome...
