-
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...
-
and pauly shore is (was?) in LR!!!
(at the comedy club)
i guess i could ask him!
and yes... hanny, you is one tall mo fo!!
-
hmm...just curious...but are the trees in this patch of land able to reproduce?
i was looking for some more info and found this site...lol i found it pretty amusing..ehh i laugh @ the dumbest things though...hehe ahh well..here it is:
"how trees are born"
-
hmm...where to start? alrite..i'm just gonna throw some random ideas together...i'm hoping they'll make sense in some way =)
(btw, all the words that are italicised means that i pulled them from a diff source...i didnt make them up..hehe)
hmm...well i saw this and thought it was pretty interesting...so i thought i'd stick it in =)
The blue whale is the largest creature the world has ever known - even larger than the biggest dinosaur. But the giant sequoia tree makes this mammal look like an infant! Three times longer and 32 times heavier than the blue whale, the giant sequoia tree is the largest living thing on the planet.* Giant sequoias also live a very long time. Some are more than 3,000 years old!
i dont really have a point to make on that...just that wow...that's a long time =) but if you're wondering why they are able to live so long...it's because their bark is very thick and resists forest fires.
another tree called the Baobab tree, grows in Africa. They can be found in Tanzania. Those trees are 4,000 years old...making them older than Jesus and Moses
i thought that was pretty amazing =)
hmm...i dont know how old u are shatz...but i'm guessing early 20s give or take a few years...lol
<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"> 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. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
hmm...well some trees, like the ones above, can last a VERY long time...so i'm thinking that it might be "a while longer" b4 we find the answer to that...hehe
mmk...just making sure..but your question 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"> will a tree ever die?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
so we're just focusing on the life of a single tree, right?
hmm...well when i was looking for more information about trees (lol, i sound like sucha loser..hehe oh well [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) i found this:
Why do trees die? It is because they use/need more food than they can manufacture. The food hierarchy for carbon allocation is for maintenance first, followed by new roots, leaves, storage, and trunk diameter. Tree defense against pests is the lowest priority.
say if the tree is not going to be affected by disease (meaning it wont die because of that)...then the patch of land will still (gradually) become more and more populated by trees. this goes back to the competition not only for sunlight, but also for nutrients.
***just a side note, from what has been said so far...i'm taking that we're saying that "the tree" will not die because of insects, such as defoliators and bark and wood borers, nematodes (parasitic worms), bacteria, viruses and fungi and the "utopian" area will not change. but the thing is...if <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> ... then we have to realize that u cant really take the insects, place them on that patch of land w/ "the tree" and just expect them to sit there...most likely...they'll have some interaction w/ the tree and stuff .. ehh well that was just a side point hehe ***
oh btw...is this "patch of land" an ecosystem?
Tree death is a natural and necessary aspect of the forest ecosystem. The death of large old trees is necessary for the regeneration of new trees and the continuation of the forest. Death is necessary for life.
Tree diseases that attack especially weak trees can improve the overall vigor of a stand. In addition, the death of a large tree in the forest creates a gap in the canopy, letting sunlight reach the forest floor and allowing the regeneration of species that would not otherwise grow in the shade of the tree.
i was looking up *why* trees die...and besides disease, and other biotic/abiotic factors...they die because of "old age". i kept trying to look up WHY do they die of old age...and i couldnt find an answer. i think it's kind of similar in the way some humans can die of old age. (ehh, this is probably very debatable...anywayz...)
so all in all...i think "the tree" will eventually die...i dont know how long it will take...but that's just my thought.
oh...i just had another thought (sorry, i tend to be really random =/) newayz...i was just curious...since only rodents and small animals live there...do those little critters produce enough carbon dioxide for all the trees living on this patch of land? i guess this goes along w/ the competition for nutrients and light etc.
hmm...well i think that's all i have to say for now...and i have to apologize again, because i know my comments are probably pretty random and stuff...but i hope u get the main gist of those thoughts =)
-
Hybrid vigor and natural selection. The breeding of superior slightly different species and the death of the inferior ones will allow the genus to survive.
-
If the genus is to survive some must die, allowing more space and resources for those that survived. Additionally, since the inferior species is now dead, it cannot spread its genetic code, thus reducing the inferiority raising the chances that the genus will survive.
So, if there is just one tree, one may assume that it is the perfect tree. All the trees throughout time have bred and died and now this is the final result, all the good things without the negative. If it is the ultimate tree, then it would be invulnerable to insects, rodents, etc. and it can survive in poor climates as well as favorable ones.
So, now we have the genetically perfect tree and the question may again be asked, will the tree die? The answer is obvious, no.
If it is genetically perfect, then it does not need to breed. it does not need to grow older. It does not need to do anything other than continue to exist. It it is genetically perfect, then any genetic strands which cause it to age, after maturity has been achieved, will have been removed. If it never grows old, and it is invulnerable to natural/unnatural causes of death, then one could argue that it cannot die.
-
hmmm...
but considering that genetics are basically
made up of 'things' which make up cells...
then those cells, too, must be perfect.
and since all cells carry chromosomes that
have the potential to switch on and off depending
on...well... they just don't know what makes
'em switch...
then it would be safe to assume that, on the
molecular level... it is erratic and pure chance
that the cells would be perfect in and of themselves.
therefore, that preceeds your present thought
that a tree is perfect.
from what i understand, there is no 'perfect' thing.
-
no replies? [img]frown.gif[/img]
-
Eh, do not mind the ramblings of an old, sleep deprived man.
-
-
-
[img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
