Reaction wood

[daltontrees]

So it's teleology is it? I shall hunt it down mercilessly in scientific talk.

 

The nice wording of the judgement is very technical, and we can suppose the judge is quoting carefully from the experts, probably from a statement of agreed facts. And the "All agree" thing is not necessarily all in the world, just all in the case. But considering who the witnesses are, that's pretty solid.

 

I hope we can get to see the latest DD article. Delightful choice of the chinese buddy....!

[daltontrees]

Anyone got any strong view on me adding to Wikipedia a definition of adaptive growth along the lines of the Bowen case wording? Cross referenced to reaction wood of course. Dammit I'd have to check if Wikipedia alrady has axiom of uniform stress. And then something else, and then, and then...

[daltontrees]

I have edited the Wikipedia page for 'reaction wood', including the changes suggested by you all and the Shigo commentary provided by btggaz (hope it's right...). Editing Wikipedia is not for the faint hearted especially if, like me, you have the weight of moral responsibility bearing down on you as you do it. But if anyone disagrees with the definition please say so or change it yourself. For now I see it as a great improvement on the previous doubtlessly well-intended entry. Thanks all.

 

A definition of reaction wood will be added when I summon the strength and technical knowhow to do it on Wikipedia.

[daltontrees]

Im writing a fdscArb entrance paper on Tree Defence Systems and Structures. Think i've got most of it covered but can't decide if the formation of reactive wood would be classed as a defence mechanism. Im thinking if it was in response to a tree being uprooted rather than just phototropism it may be classed as a defence mechanism? What ya reckon?

 

And finally...

 

According to the researched definition reaction wood is not a defence mechanism, it's a normal response as part of the self optimisation characteristics of trees.

 

Adaptive growth can be a defence mechanism. See the useful quote from Bowen v National Trust. However, it seems clear that although it could be triggered (as in the case) by the inherent weakness of included forks and bark death and oxidation and infection at the point of compression, this form of defence mechanism seems to be a normal response to a normal phenomenon in healthy trees. The difficulty is that the failure of compression forks with included bark, and the resulting decay, is probably the most common cause of the demise of healthy trees. 'Par for the course', as it were.

 

If a castle was built big enough, no-one would even try to attack it. Is that a defence mechanism? If it had been a bit smaller and someone had had a go and failed because the walls were too thick, that's a defence mechanism.

[Gary Prentice]

I have edited the Wikipedia page for 'reaction wood', including the changes suggested by you all and the Shigo commentary provided by btggaz (hope it's right...). Editing Wikipedia is not for the faint hearted especially if, like me, you have the weight of moral responsibility bearing down on you as you do it. But if anyone disagrees with the definition please say so or change it yourself. For now I see it as a great improvement on the previous doubtlessly well-intended entry. Thanks all.

 

A definition of reaction wood will be added when I summon the strength and technical knowhow to do it on Wikipedia.

 

I actually made it up as I went along:001_tt2:

 

I'll have a look when I get back later. You're getting used to this publishing lark now. Anymore articles in the pipeline?

[daltontrees]

I actually made it up as I went along:001_tt2:

 

I'll have a look when I get back later. You're getting used to this publishing lark now. Anymore articles in the pipeline?

 

Ach, my publishing brain is like a mult-ringed cooker, always something on the back burner simmering slowly for next week's soup (don't know what kind), something ready soon-ish and something being stir-fried.

[treeseer]

When touring Mark Twain's house I saw a rack next to his desk for 'pigeon-holing' up to 20 writing projects. Nice to keep them visible; my back burner gets cold, and it's not good when skillets fall off the stove, especially paying ones!

 

The June DD will have 6 pics (3 with AG), by far the most of my 29 episodes. I'll pop it to you then, for a look at mitigation-centric vet tree mgt by an international team. I almost wrote "tickling in the Humphriesian tradition" but not sure that would be welcomed...

 

Mr. gaz' typing was quite accurate. I'm glad to have picked up the book again; the in vivo/in vitro page 61 yielded some potent quotables.

[LostInTheFingerLakes]

Seems like as good a place as any to jump in for a first post. This is how I understand it:

 

A) Response wood (adaptive wood growth)

I) Reaction wood- Gravity

a) Tension

b) Compression

II) Wound Wood- Growth as a response to wounding

III) Flexure Wood- Growth in response to movement (wind)

Edited April 25, 2014 by LostInTheFingerLakes

[daltontrees]

Welcome to Arbtalk, I ma always pleased to have anyone contributing to debate.

 

I think you have covered to quite well, along the lines of my attached notes a while ago but with the use of the term 'response wood'. As you have probably noted from the debate so far, it is fair to say that all wood is an adjustment to normal growth. The phrase 'all wood is reaction wood' is so appealing that it could be adopted as the core of a definition such as yours, except that the term 'reaction wood' has very definitely been bagged already to mean tension or compression wood in response to gravity. Hence all the fuss by me about at least getting Wikipedia right in line with published definitions such as Shigo, Lonsdale, Thomas etc.

 

I wopuld add to your list 'Geotropic wood' to clarify that the tendency of trees to grow upwards is distinct from the tendency for trees to put on extra wood (reaction wood) to combat gravity.

 

The next difficulty im my mind is whether wound wood is really flexure wood, because if a stem is removed or breaks off, it creates a flexure point which may just be generating callus as a response to flexure to strengthen the weakness rather than as a covering over.

[LostInTheFingerLakes]

Welcome to Arbtalk, I ma always pleased to have anyone contributing to debate.

 

I think you have covered to quite well, along the lines of my attached notes a while ago but with the use of the term 'response wood'. As you have probably noted from the debate so far, it is fair to say that all wood is an adjustment to normal growth. The phrase 'all wood is reaction wood' is so appealing that it could be adopted as the core of a definition such as yours, except that the term 'reaction wood' has very definitely been bagged already to mean tension or compression wood in response to gravity. Hence all the fuss by me about at least getting Wikipedia right in line with published definitions such as Shigo, Lonsdale, Thomas etc.

 

I wopuld add to your list 'Geotropic wood' to clarify that the tendency of trees to grow upwards is distinct from the tendency for trees to put on extra wood (reaction wood) to combat gravity.

 

The next difficulty im my mind is whether wound wood is really flexure wood, because if a stem is removed or breaks off, it creates a flexure point which may just be generating callus as a response to flexure to strengthen the weakness rather than as a covering over.

Interesting point about whether Flexure wood is really wound wood. I agree, in the process of flexing, injury within the tree can occur (even micro tears) leading to the formation of wound wood. We also know that wood formed from wounding is quite distinct biochemical and anatomical from other wood forms. The question than becomes is Flexure wood biochemical and anatomical different from Wound wood?