How tree branches are attached to trunks

[Gary Prentice]

Jeez Kevin, this threads so old it's celebrating its birthday. It's in a magazine if I remember correctly- which I think I have. Give me a couple of hrs and I'll see if I can find it.

[sloth]

Cheers mate. I've felt since Slater's article came out I haven't given it enough consideration. I'm just now making the time to look into it and see what to make of it. I searched uktc and arbtalk, and this thread was about the most discussion I found - quite surprising really, given the regard some hold Shigo and his work in. That and the fact it's the only major questioning of the widely accepted theory of branch attachment since its introduction in the 80's, I'm shocked opinions haven't been voiced more, particularly over at uktc where aren't normally shy about this sort of thing...

[daltontrees]

Oooerr, on the way through to the kitchen I just had a blinding revelation about branch attachment, but then I poured a glass of Pinot Gris and it faded. Something to do with what I researched for a recent question on Arbtalk about meristems, that now seems in the back of my mind to support Shigo's empirical findings. Brought on by IanW's pictures. If it comes back to me in the morning I will share it here. It, anything, has got to be better than doing my tax return.

 

Happy birthday post, by the way.

[Gary Prentice]

Sorry Kevin, it wasn't an article by, but about, Mattheck by Mick Boddy. In "The Arb Magazine" -Issue 163, winter 2013, pp34-35. Titled Clause Mattheck workshop - Germany 2013

 

The article describes Clauses updated branch attachment model, which was also covered later in year during his lecture tour. I've searched my PDF's and can't find anything else that CM has published.

 

Re-reading the article has reminded me about the lecture at Loughborough last May, his new model was the reason for the delay in his new book. He added it late in the publishing/translating process.

 

I spoke to Claus about Duncans work and he's very firm in his opinion, his exaxt words were "he is wrong".

 

I;ve a lot of research on this, so if you need anything else just ask.

[sloth]

Cheers fella, much appreciated. I'll see if I still have that issue. On another note, any word on the new book release date?

[Gary Prentice]

Cheers fella, much appreciated. I'll see if I still have that issue. On another note, any word on the new book release date?

 

If you haven't I can scan it. I asked on here in December about the book and no-one knew.

[sloth]

If you could that'd be most appreciated, I think I cleared it out when I moved...

[Gary Prentice]

Its at home and I'm at work, I'll bring it in to scan in the AM

[sloth]

Still at work eh, long day! No rush, and thanks again

[KTSmith]

So is there a question on the table? The most recently posted images to this thread simply show branch stubs or what an American lumberman would call "pin knots". Normal branches in every way. They died (due to shading, probably) and were "shed" in the sense of the breaking of symplast connections, yet remained attached. Successive years of vascular cambium growth of the stem encased them. The encasing wood is appressed to the branch stub but not confluent with it. The branches are, as always, only attached at the base.

Or have I missed the point entirely or is there no point of discussion on the table.

If so, a fresh thread might be in order.

This thread had been asking for Shigo's 1985 attachment paper. It's readily available from any good library or interlibrary loan, but I'd be happy to send it along. Perhaps I already have! This thread, like me, is a bit long in the tooth.