(Arboricultural-styled) 'Fact of the Day'

[Kveldssanger]

Will get back to posting facts as of tomorrow.

[Paul Cleaver]

But how many sides to the dice of evolutionary chance are there?

 

I'm not nit-picking on purpose, I'm just awe struck by the sheer brilliance of the (chaotic?) system.

 

Ordo ab chao? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

 

Im flattered your asking me lol - I havnt got a Scooby doo - but fascinated by it all

[Kveldssanger]

30/09/15. Fact #45.

 

The (widely) accepted reason for why trees are dioicous (male or female - not both [Monoecious]) is that such trees are able to negate the adverse effects of self-fertilisation. Self-fertilisation, or in-breeding, leaves fewer successful offspring, and fewer offspring in general, with each passing generation.

 

Many mocoecious trees will however have protective mechanisms within the 'perfect' flower that stop self-fertilisation following self-pollination. However, this does not negate risk in the same manner than having separate-gendered individuals does.

 

Source: Crane, P. (2013) Ginkgo. USA: Yale University Press.

[Kveldssanger]

30/09/15. Fact #46.

 

Usually, the larger the flower on a tree or plant the better in terms of its attractiveness to visitors. However, some visitors will seek out symmetrical shapes and patterns on flowers. Colour also plays a huge role. Red is most attractive to birds, blue and yellow to bees, and white to moths. Other colours are of course principally beneficial to other types of visitor, though are not listed in this book. The stronger the contrast the flower has to its surroundings is also important, particularly for plants pollinated by bees.

 

Source: Karban, R. (2015) Plant Sensing & Communication. USA: The University of Chicago Press.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[Paul Cleaver]

bees see the ultra violate in flowers too

[Kveldssanger]

Yep! Flowers will have ultraviolet 'nectar guides' to help bees find the nectar, in many instances.

[Kveldssanger]

01/10/15. Fact #47.

 

Research indicates that larger canopy trees in particular can reduce crime rate (Donovan & Prestemon, 2012; Troy et al., 2012). Residents living in 'greener' areas on average report fewer 'incivilities', in addition to less aggressive and violent behavior (Nasar et al., 1993; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). The mechanisms by which trees reduce crime are not particularly clear-cut, though one reason may be that trees encourage people to spend more time in public spaces, which in turn increases the probability that (potential) criminals are observed and / or deterred (Donovan & Prestemon, 2012), or alternatively because social ties in 'greener' areas are greater, which increases community cohesion and reduces the risk of crime inherently (Troy & Grove, 2008).

 

However, if a tree, or group of trees, are not appropriately 'lifted', thereby possessing a 'shrubby' appearance towards the butt, they can provide visual screening and subsequently increase the risk of crime (Donovan & Prestemon, 2012).

 

Sources:

 

Donovan, G. & Prestemon, J. (2012) The effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Behavior. 44 (1). p3-30.

 

Kuo, F. & Sullivan, W. (2001) Environment and crime in the inner city: does vegetation reduce crime?. Environment and Behaviour. 33 (3). p343-367.

 

Nasar, J., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993) Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning. 26 (1). p161-178.

 

Troy, A. Grove, J. (2008) Property values, parks, and crime: A hedonic analysis in Baltimore, MD. Landscape and Urban Planning. 87 (3). p233-245.

 

Troy, A., Grove, J., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2012) The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban Planning. 106 (3). p262-270.

[Kveldssanger]

No fact today - I could post so many from the book I am reading (Plant Sensing & Communication), though I figured you're all tired of such facts as you're not discussing them much (I don't mean you, Paul!).

 

I picked up the following books this week:

 

- Shedding of Plant Parts (T. T. Kozlowski)

- Sexual Reproduction of Tree Crops (Sedgeley & Griffin)

- Japanese Flowering Cherries (W. Kuitert)

- Fire in the Forest (Thomas & McAlpine)

- The New Sylva

 

So, does anyone want any facts from any of these?

[Paul Cleaver]

the new sylva

[Kveldssanger]

Shall do some reading of that tomorrow, then!

 

Attached is my current book list, in case anyone wants specific facts or whatever. The file is in .xls.

My Book List.xls