CODIT: D=Dysfunction not Decay

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I am seeing this thread for the first time. Have there been any advances on the revised model, to anyone's knowledge?

 

And digging up old ground, I am inclined to disagree with RobArb's original suggestion that D should be renamed Dysfunction. It seems to me that Damage would be more appropriate since the compartmentalisation of Wall 4 will take place regardless of decay or dysfunction, and regardless of whether Walls 1, 2 and 3 developing. I would also suggest that the formation of all 4 walls in the CODIT model are examples of function, not dysfunction. It is trees' ability to compartmentalise damage that has given the evolutionary advantage to outcompete plants of lesser stature. This seems to me a function. One could go on to argue that all the mechanisms or physical barriers of walls 1, 2 and 3 will happen or are already present regardless of pathogens.

 

Sorry, Rob, but I can't see why Dysfunction is an appropriate term. Decay doesn't seem that apt now either.

 

no, because damage is not needed for dysfunction, which ,may just be aged wood, as in heartwood

[daltontrees]

no, because damage is not needed for dysfunction, which ,may just be aged wood, as in heartwood

 

Good point, but decay IS always damage. Conversely damage is not always decay. Decay can arise from OR cause dysfunction. Dysfunction is a process, not a thing, and I don't see how a consequence of damage or decay can be described as compartmentalised ???

[Gary Prentice]

no, because damage is not needed for dysfunction, which ,may just be aged wood, as in heartwood

 

Is heartwood dysfunctional? The term itself suggests something that is no longer working properly. Whereas heartwoods purpose has changed from a vascular capacity. Not trying to be pedantic.

[daltontrees]

Is heartwood dysfunctional? The term itself suggests something that is no longer working properly. Whereas heartwoods purpose has changed from a vascular capacity. Not trying to be pedantic.

 

It might be stretching a point to say that heartwood is even functional in the first place. Shigo's static apoplast and all that?

 

PS I noted somewhere this morning that Shigo defines Decay in CODIT as the process of decay, not the substance. I am even more convinced that Dysfunction is not a better term. Sorry to disagree. But it's just semantics anyway.

[nod]

I wonder if our years of referral to the description as offered by the great seer of history have blinkered us to what takes place in front of our very eyes. Is wall 4 part of a compartmentalizing process, or is it maybe the tree growing into an immediate & available space, just as any other part of the very same organism is doing?

 

We become lost in trying to define & redefine, labouring on differences of opinion in order to not cause offense, often. Sometimes we have invested so heavily in believing a story in history that we cannot bring ourselves to not believe, even in the face of obvious contrary evidence. Our allegiances are stronger than we care to consider.

 

Only from a perspective of not knowing are we truly free to allow the light of nature to shine through.

[daltontrees]

I wonder if our years of referral to the description as offered by the great seer of history have blinkered us to what takes place in front of our very eyes. Is wall 4 part of a compartmentalizing process, or is it maybe the tree growing into an immediate & available space, just as any other part of the very same organism is doing?

 

We become lost in trying to define & redefine, labouring on differences of opinion in order to not cause offense, often. Sometimes we have invested so heavily in believing a story in history that we cannot bring ourselves to not believe, even in the face of obvious contrary evidence. Our allegiances are stronger than we care to consider.

 

Only from a perspective of not knowing are we truly free to allow the light of nature to shine through.

 

Rather beautifully put! In strictly Darwinian terms, we need not analyse CODIT too much. Trees get damaged but they survive because they have evolved mechanisms to cope with damage. Our species has evolved, on the other hand, to include the ability to overlook evidence in favour of... well I'm not yet sure. Disdain for other species seems quite high on the agenda, as does a curious mixture of intelligence and selective ignorance. As I am more than sure you know, we are part of nature and not some sort of self-appointed overseer of it.