How tree branches are attached to trunks

[MATTMOSS]

Touch Trees!

[Gary Prentice]

Touch Trees!

 

You still on the Christmas (b)cheer too:001_tt2:

 

 

Thank you for your thought provoking post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get on with your assignments man.

[Gary Prentice]

yes it was a pine, when I get back on site tomorrow I'll have a look and get back to you with species, measurements and a few more cross sections

 

Ian

 

Could you get a pic of a longitudinal cut through the 'knots' too, please.

[Gary Prentice]

Wait, who are we saying is god, Mattheck or Shigo? And much as I am prepared to accept polytheism, I can't see Slater being much more than an altar boy so far.

 

PS, any chance of getting a shot on that Gilman article after you've read it please?

 

 

Disclaimer

The above post is a personal opinion expressed by the poster and is not intended to be accepted as the opinion of either the original thread starter (i.e Me) or the entity of 'ArbTalk' as an internet forum.:lol:

 

Wow, I think he's really starting to get your back up Jules. Seriously though, as a student I'm finding it's really easy to accept the wisdom of the lecturer as gospel, peer review is particularly absent in that situation and the confidence to dispute, question or argue is lacking.

 

I think I've your email address so I'll send it over.

[Gary Prentice]

No I can't find your email address, it must be on my system at work. Can you PM it and I'll send it over in the morning - I think the article is on my computer at work too.

 

This was referred to in Duncans paper, if you haven't already seen it

Water transport at stem-branch junctures in woody angiosperms.pdf

[Gary Prentice]

here you go jules

request.pdf

[daltontrees]

Well, I was going to go out and do some work but it looks like that's my morning spoken for now. Thanks for the documents.

 

Generally, no-one whose research methodologies are rigorous and whose approach is scientific should be bothered by criticism. It's the lifeblood of the advancement of collective understanding. If pseudoscience or nonsense methodologies or unsubstantiated assumptions or personal agendas stand in the way of that, it really annoys me, and so it should. I, you and everyone else are peers, we are reviewing albeit fairly informally. I'm not even thinking about Slater in particular. Just making a general point that echoes yours.

[daltontrees]

Neely (1991) is a fabulous piece of work. I had no idea that this research had been done. This is what I mean about good methodology. I may read it again just to admire the quality of the approach regardless of the results.

[daltontrees]

Gilman (2003) is very nice too. Sensibly he did not try to debunk Shigo based on only small trees of one species. I wonder if he was ever taken up on his recommendation of multi-species larger tree research?

 

I spotted a typo in the Bibliography - Shigo 1985 : How tree branches are attacked...

[Gary Prentice]

So after reading Shigo's original work:

 

Branches that were pulled slowly out of the trees showed

the "ball and socket" pattern of the trunk and branch tissues

(Fig. 10). There was a weak connection between branch and

trunk above the branch within the crotch. When the branch was

pulled downward, the first separation between branch and

trunk started within the branch crotch. It was very difficult to

pull out a branch by pulling upward.

 

I don't have the 'New Tree Biology' at home at present so can't clarify the reference made to that.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Gary Prentice