I'm not a number.......

[Frank]

Was thinking around the fact that soppy Londoners feed our American Tree rats far too much these days,

and this is just the result of one big fat arsed squiggle, limb walking a tad too far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Haha. Yeah, but seriously...........

[sean freeman]

Wondering if there was actually two revolting branches there?

[David Humphries]

Wondering if there was actually two revolting branches there?

 

 

 

Make that three then Sean

 

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

Haha. Yeah, but seriously...........

 

 

 

Yeah, seriously..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Bundle 2]

Yeah, seriously..............

.

 

Looking at the image of the origin of the branch in the first post, I am not atall convinced that the fat git theory is entirely righteous tbh. The fact that we see this phenomenom in a few places on the same tree suggests something else may be going on.

Consider that a pigeon will not likely chose to rest on a vertical branch.......

[Ben90]

My tutor mentioned this, he called it 'canopy creep'.

 

I'm not sure how it happened initially, but since those few branches have left the main canopy I assume they've been able to do much more photosynthesis than the others; which remain 'competing' in the tightly packed crown. Possibly leading to the tree investing more energy into the stray branch's individual success I.e more growth, which in turn looks like they're going to continue creeping outwards and downwards due to the extra weight and the reaction wood not being laid down fast enough.

 

It sounded better in my head

 

You can also see the tips of the branches growing back in toward the centre of the tree, axiom of uniform stress?

Edited May 14, 2010 by Ben90

[arbclimber]

My tutor mentioned this, he called it 'canopy creep'.

 

I'm not sure how it happened initially, but since those few branches have left the main canopy I assume they've been able to do much more photosynthesis than the others; which remain 'competing' in the tightly packed crown. Possibly leading to the tree investing more energy into the stray branch's individual success I.e more growth, which in turn looks like they're going to continue creeping outwards and downwards due to the extra weight and the reaction wood not being laid down fast enough.

 

It sounded better in my head

 

Sounds sensible to me too mate:thumbup1:

[testcricket01]

posted this pic a while ago now does it count as being the same kind of thing?

[ScottF]

Snow?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

As shape of the tree is determined by a hormone produced by the central leader, I.e oaks have a weak apical dominace and low hormonal control to rival leaders.

 

one might asume that some wierd genetics throw back, and low investment to lignin like the "yuppy tree" has resulted in rapid growth in these deviant branches and rapid grownth high in celulose like the "yuppy trees" have failed and bent downward.

 

as suggested these are proving essentialy to be succseful pioneers as investment in their continued support goes on.