Questions about Trees (2020)(bit-player.org)
bit-player.org
Questions about Trees (2020)
http://bit-player.org/2020/questions-about-trees
9 comments
This is very interesting but what about the effects of mycorrhizal networks? I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that it has been demonstrated that these networks interact with the root system of trees to trade nutrients. Couldn’t that sort of thing level the playing field and alter the typical evolutionary processes we would expect?
Yes, the work of Suzanne Simard (https://suzannesimard.com/) and others should also be factored in - although I wonder if the models exist for this yet.
would be a cool project, but where do you even start? i'd be curious to see some tech-based experiments about it
Very interesting article. The discussion on the three models and their own deficiencies are quite interesting.
Niche assembly: every survival must have its own unique edge of advantage. I guess I'm most convinced by this. The counter-argument is "how can every specie has its unique edge?", but it could also be that we have not yet discovered it.
Natural drift: if everyone is equally fit and the system is large enough, then they can all survive (for a long time). But how come is everyone equally fit? The response is "since everyone survived (as we observe), everyone must be equally fit".. Honestly I'm not convinced by this logic.
Social distancing: trees practice social distancing to defend enemies, so diversity comes in. If tree-killing pests are all staying on one tree and kill its offsprings around it (but cannot kill the original tree since it's too large), then this theory seems plausible. I have no idea if this is true in the forests though..
Niche assembly: every survival must have its own unique edge of advantage. I guess I'm most convinced by this. The counter-argument is "how can every specie has its unique edge?", but it could also be that we have not yet discovered it.
Natural drift: if everyone is equally fit and the system is large enough, then they can all survive (for a long time). But how come is everyone equally fit? The response is "since everyone survived (as we observe), everyone must be equally fit".. Honestly I'm not convinced by this logic.
Social distancing: trees practice social distancing to defend enemies, so diversity comes in. If tree-killing pests are all staying on one tree and kill its offsprings around it (but cannot kill the original tree since it's too large), then this theory seems plausible. I have no idea if this is true in the forests though..
The first two points answer each other: within each niche, there will be exactly 1 dominant species or N species which are at a local nash equlibrium or some species in the process of dying out "hoping" that things change. But they are free to drift around in dimensions that doesn't hurt them in their niche and if they find a way to create a new niche for themselves, there is high pressure to exploit it because "hey, it's free real estate" i.e. they no longer have to compete in the niche they were previously locked into.
People don't get that evolution selects for one thing only: continuation of your branch of the process. No other measuring stick. Genes, cells, multicells etc. just exist and some are better at continuing to exist, and they do that by finding niches for themselves. Once everyone found one, they are all equally fit. But we still have cultural narratives of humans at the "pinnacle of evolution" as if there is a big (abrahamic...) judge in the sky ranking species linearly. So we struggle really appreciating the trippy "goal" of evolution
People don't get that evolution selects for one thing only: continuation of your branch of the process. No other measuring stick. Genes, cells, multicells etc. just exist and some are better at continuing to exist, and they do that by finding niches for themselves. Once everyone found one, they are all equally fit. But we still have cultural narratives of humans at the "pinnacle of evolution" as if there is a big (abrahamic...) judge in the sky ranking species linearly. So we struggle really appreciating the trippy "goal" of evolution
This article reminded a friend of "Zero to One" by Peter Thiel. It was an interesting piece to keep in mind and to make some connections while going through the article.
Thanks for posting baradhiren07, Brian Hayes is a great find as so many theoretical ecologists are so model-oriented their works and thoughts are not applicable in forest, field or meadow.
"A model is the Marie Kondo version of nature—relentlessly decluttered and tidied up. Sometime important parts get tossed out ... Would we learn more if all those aspects of life in the woods had a place in the equations or the algorithms?"
I often design very large planting schemes and there are some genuinely useful approaches to randomness explored here.
And he's written 'Foolproof, and Other Mathematical Meditations' which I'll be tracking down asap.
"A model is the Marie Kondo version of nature—relentlessly decluttered and tidied up. Sometime important parts get tossed out ... Would we learn more if all those aspects of life in the woods had a place in the equations or the algorithms?"
I often design very large planting schemes and there are some genuinely useful approaches to randomness explored here.
And he's written 'Foolproof, and Other Mathematical Meditations' which I'll be tracking down asap.
I didn't know Brian Hayes has a book too. Thank you for sharing that.
One note about the trees of Massachusetts is that we chopped 80% of them down in the middle of the 1800's, and then for the next 80 or so years managed the regrowth depending on what type of tree was economically useful. The 1930's aren't that long ago from a tree's point of view I think, so we should suppose they are still in a fairly perturbed state (both in an emotional and a 'different from steady state distribution' sense, I guess).
Anyway, this doesn't really impact the article, which just uses the trees of MA as a framing device (narrative framing, that is, rather than for example house framing). I just thought it was a neat bit of trivia.
Anyway, this doesn't really impact the article, which just uses the trees of MA as a framing device (narrative framing, that is, rather than for example house framing). I just thought it was a neat bit of trivia.