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.

Ahhhhhhhh man that's rough!

Well this is uncanny. Reading through my book Plant Sensing & Communication, and I come across this: "The bright colours of many fungi have been interpreted as aposematic, and plants hosting fungi that are highly toxic to vertebrates may benefit through association with these fungi that herbivores avoid." Perhaps one can therefore suggest that fungi have such distinct colours as the genotypes that formed such coloured brackets were less prone to fungivores, thereby facilitating greater propagation of their offspring and perpetuating the 'brightly-coloured bracket allele' within the gene pool. Span this out over milennia, and that may be where we are today.

Ash can also be ID'd by their seed. The seed looks like European Ash, from the photo you have provided. Again, F. pennsylvanica have smaller seeds.

Looks it, to me. Green / red ash has a brown bud. Also note the non-opposite buds. A sign of very vigorous growth, I do believe. Crinkled leaves may also be a sign of rapid growth, though I have no reference for that - just from what I have been told.

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.

The rationale behind my comment comes in the sense that the dead tree wouldn't actively be putting on any new defences to counter decay, giving the fungus an easier time (within reason, as chemicals and such laid down will remain following death). This would allow for it to do one of two things: (1) invest more time into sporophore formation, or (2) invest more time in colonising the remaining substrate accessible (sans boring insects breaking the barriers [assuming the tree is still standing of course] and / or the hyphae have not reachd the 'ends' of the logs and cannot 'migrate' into the outer wood not encased by the reaction zone [is this even feasible for the species?]), at the expense of sporophore formation. Absolutely stunning pictures, I must say. I actually wouldn't mind seeing one of those on a tree over here, merely so I can admire the form! Is there any reason behind the colouration? This can also apply to fungi as a whole - why do they adopt particular pigmentations? I cannot say I have ever read why.

Look at the bud scar. A half moon with a distinct straight upper limit below the actual bud means F. pennsylvanica, for example.

Will get back to posting facts as of tomorrow.

That red-banded polypore looks like it must invest a lot of energy into the sporophores. Were the brackets on the dead logs much larger than on the living trees?

Cracking photos! That pollard is incredible.

Not bad - never really done circuit training if I am honest, though I did German Volume Training for a bit a few months ago - it was an experience! Back to higher weight lower reps now, as it's more enjoyable.

No question - it's a personal challenge, every time I walk in, to beat last week's attempt.

I enjoy learning more about 'alternate' human histories, the means in which people report they can contact with 'spiritual entities', watch videos and documentaries on other areas that most people would regard as 'fringe' topics, reading books on various topics (whatever I fancy - usually nature, though sometimes literature on 'political' concepts I find interesting), and weightlifting. Like to keep myself busy.

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?

Indeed, it would be on the genetic level. Perhaps the 'upregulation' (as I explained a few days back) of genes associated with response to herbivory, on one specimen, brought about the synthesis of adequate receptors to identify mucus and then have the plant respond to this receptor's signal by making themselves less palatable (but only to snails?).

It'd be a cracking coincidence if so. What would drive the chance mutation? The odds would surely be very low, with regards to receptors being developed within the leaf that identify the exact elements (and their mix within the mucus, all whilst excluding 'background' depositions on the leaf from other insects or environmental conditions) of mucus. From reading this book I am building up a picture of an absurdly acute 'intelligence system' (not in the human sense of the word) within every plant.

Building on the above post, I think the following sums up the wonders of the plant world. "Brassica nigra plants responded to incidental cues of moving snails (mucus) and became less palatable to snails before they were actually attacked; presumably mucus was a reliable predictor of increased risk." So this begs the question... ...for this evolutionary trait to have come into existence, there must have been a time where the cabbage plant did not know what snails and mucus even were - nor could it even 'sense' it (mucus). It would have of course 'recognised' it was being defoliated, though if at one point it did not qualify mucus as an indicator of risk (because snails had only just realised how delicious and nutritious raw cabbage was!), it would not have receptors to identify that mucus was on its structure. How did it first begin to create receptors for identifying mucus as a means of predicting future herbivory, if it was not able to sense mucus at one point before (as it was not an indicator of risk)? I do hope that made sense.

A few days of work for free is all well and good, though where is the cut-off? There comes a point where one is just being taken advantage of. As a younger person, I can tolerate working for free once in a while, though I should be paid for my time beyond a point. From a younger person's perspective, working for free (or doing an 'internship') is just a way of letting yourself get taken advantage of. We all need to pay bills and keep the cash flowing, after all.

27/09/15. Fact #44. Upon browsing (herbivory) of a plant (by insects, mammals, avifauna, etc), there is the potential for various direct responses from the plant. Many responses are considered to be under the banner of induced resistance, where physiological and chemical changes within the plant structure cause herbivores to be less attracted to further browsing, or cause herbivores to perform less favourably following further consumption. However, the response may not always be beneficial for the plant in terms of resisting further herbivory. Induced susceptibility can and does occur, by where further browsing by herbivores improves their performance. Other induced responses may be of no relevance to the plant-herbivore relationship. The healing of wounds, for example, is an induced response that has no direct impact upon herbivore performance. It is also important to note that induced resistance is coming from the angle of the herbivore, and not the plant. Therefore, induced resistance may not benefit the plant - it only makes it harder for the herbivore. Induced defence, on the other hand, may improve plant fitness where there is risk of further herbivory - the plant may only improve its defence following a triggering event, because it is otherwise an inefficient use of resources to invest in such increased defence levels (where increased defence is not needed). Further, where a plant consistently is faced with high levels of herbivory, induced responses may be permanently expressed to match the level of risk - and of course the opposite where there is low risk. Sources: Karban, R. (2015) Plant Sensing & Communication. USA: The University of Chicago Press. Karban, R. & Myers, J. (1989) Induced plant responses to herbivory. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 20. p331-348. Nykänen, H., & Koricheva, J. (2004). Damage‐induced changes in woody plants and their effects on insect herbivore performance: a meta‐analysis. Oikos. 104 (2). p247-268.

It's actually rather unfair to have biologists say that, as when explaining something one has to almost describe it in a human sort of way whilst still suggesting that plants are not like humans. That is what this author of the book I am reading stresses, and which is why I use certain words with inverted commas around them. That comment by the biologist is rather nitpicky, as I think we all know they don't behave like mammals. There is nonetheless a large degree of similarity, though disparity presents itself as mammals and birds respond mainly to visuals / light, whilst insects and plants respond to chemicals primarily. It seems almost pointless to try to not describe plants as if they were comparable to humans purely in order to teach, as one cannot teach the situation with ease to students and readers if they lack the entire basis (of which we don't even fully understand!) of how a plant functions within its paradigm. I say biologists (and botanists) should focus on more important stuff than that. Pointing stuff out for the sake of pointing it out, when everyone knows it anyway, is a waste of time.

Non-random thoughts - with plants being so complex in terms of what they respond to from cues and signals, the internal cues and signals that operate within, and the cues and signals they give out to other plants, predators, parasites of predators, etc, I do wonder what governs it all. This book suggests there may be a sort of Central Nervous System for the plant, given the sheer complexity of it all. I am yet to find out whether the author delves into this more - I do hope so. Plants even 'remember' that they have 'received' certain cues and signals for minutes, days, or even months, so this adds another level onto the above situation.

Language is a flawed medium.

26/09/15. Fact #43. I could share so many facts from this book that I could do one each day for a year and still not cover all the awesome things found within. A tree is naturally compartmented, from the intra-cellular level through to the cellular level, and from the cellular level through to the 'macro' level (rays and rings segment the structure into many small sections). This makes it difficult for a pathogen to invade, by a sort of default. However, things can spice up a bit when one considers that there is phenotypic variation within a single specimen in response to different localised environmental conditions. To illustrate, consider two roots branching from the same 'parent' root. One is growing into an area of higher phosphates, whilst the other isn't. Because of the localised heterogeneity of the soil environment, the roots will grow in different manners (one may be longer, 'healthier', thicker, etc, than the other). This phenotypic variation has been shown to make it more difficult for pathogens to exploit the host, both ecologically and evolutionarily (i.e. it's harder right now for the pathogen to invade, and it will be just as hard for following generations). One may even consider, as the localised environments around a tree change, that 'targets' within the tree (weak spots) shift. This makes it even more difficult for invasion from pathogens. Now obviously pathogens have their own strategies to counteract this, though considering this concept makes the plant-pathogen relationship yet more intriguing. Sources: Adler, F. & Karban, R. (1994) Defended fortresses or moving targets? Another model of inducible defenses inspired by military metaphors. American Naturalist. p813-832. Karban, R. (2015) Plant Sensing & Communication. USA: The University of Chicago Press. Karban, R., Agrawal, A., & Mangel, M. (1997) The benefits of induced defenses against herbivores. Ecology. 78 (5). p1351-1355

Good stuff! I'm on p46 of 197 right now. It's a tough read in some respects, though very fruitful. So much new information packed into the pages. Most reference are from the turn of the milennia, and many are even from the 2010-2015 period. It really does deal with cutting-edge stuff. Will be interested to see if a second edition comes out in the future, with updates text.