Exactly! I’ve said this for years, every time the meme comes up. I’m saying it right now to anyone nearby.
I mean, I have no real basis to know if canopy friction is the reason or not but I’m saving this post as support of my confirmation bias anyway.
It’s sort of how trees don’t have limbs lower than the height of a box truck along major roads.
So trees have evolved truck-sensing organs in the span of mere decades? Unbelievable!
I know you're joking but it's really survival of the fittest.
Branches that are too low and get hit by trucks don't grow very far into the road.
Not really. Along most major roads, if trees are close enough to even potentially be a problem, they will be trimmed by road crews.
It's not because they get hit by trucks, it's because they're deliberately trimmed back to keep the road clear.
The result is the same and it's not because the trees are shy.
on the route of my bus route in HS you could see that the shape of the trees were exactly the shape of the busses, so either it was the busses trimming the trees or a very impressive lumberjack showing off for no benefit at all
Ah the age old question, which came first, the lumberjack or the buses?
They dont get trimmed enough and usually get "trimmed" by passing tractor trailers.
Apparently that's the leading theory, but another is just that for reasons I am absolutely unqualified to explain, they sense light in specific ways that causes them to grow differently once they get close enough to another tree blocking some of the light there.
Like a houseplant angling toward the window light?
A little, the stretching house plant demonstrates how plants can sense the direction light is coming from. They can also sense qualities of light. They can tell if light is filtered through other leaves, for instance. I would speculate that refected light also has a unique color (wavelength) distribution that a plant could sense and respond to
Terms like "sense" and "tell" are a bit misleading. It's very much a chemical/mechanical interaction that's automatic. Rather like soap bubbles "sensing" when they've reached the surface of the water.
Plants contain a protein called phototropin, which is activated by light. When it's activated, it changes the shape and alignment of the "skeleton" of the cell, making it more cube-shaped as opposed to long and skinny.
That means the light side of a plant gets shorter, while the dark side remains long. The dark side also grows slightly faster, on a count of having more cells there (you can fit more skinny cells side-by-side than wide cells), and so the plant angles and grows toward the light.
And yes. The colour matters. Phototropin reacts best to blue light, and leaves absorb mostly red and blue light (which is why they're green). It basically ignores the green light filtered through leaves.
I mean, so are our sense before being processed by the brain.
What's a tree's brain in this analogy?
Nothing, but I'd argue you don't need a brain for the sensory parts doing sensing to count as senses.
I'd disagree with that argument and draw an analogy with the short reactive pathways triggered by e.g. that thing where you tap a knee with a hammer and it jerks; I don't think the reaction loop there counts as a sense, and only when you add in the CNS and perception of it does it even connect to one. But it's hardly a cut'n'dried argument and I'm sure there's a lot left to plausibly disagree on here
Tell me you don't communicate science often without saying it. Know the audience is rule 1.
But ok, 'tell' is useful anthropormophism to get an idea across. Sensing though? In what way is reacting to a stimuli not sensing? It is the word scientific papers use. What would you say instead?
The reflected light of other leaves wouldn’t cause photosynthesis since it only has wavelengths that the chloroplasts reflect. They wouldn’t have any light to absorb, or at least a lot less.
I imagine it’s like expecting regular soda and getting diet.
I would speculate that [reflected] light also has a unique color (wavelength) distribution that a plant could sense and respond to
It seems as far as we can tell, trees can detect "far red" spectrum light, suspected to be done via phytochromes, and that spectrum of light is in higher quantities when closer to other tree leaves because it gets reflected off.
They detect that, and don't grow as much in that direction since it would cause diminishing returns.
So is there some research showing it's caused by damage? That should be easy to confirm, right?
apparently not, as it remains uncertain. there are hypotheses though, one of which is referred to in this meme: winds cause collisions which cause abrasions and damage, which result in crown shyness.
Good band name
Just let the tips touch
Has no one ever been in a forest before? Trees 100% grow all up into each other all the time. They compete for sunlight and try to choke each other out by design. These pictures honestly don't look real
It's a thing, not an evident everywhere, the photos look less weird if you zoom in a bit it's mostly thw wide angle lenses imo
interesting reading, if a bit brief, im sure you could find lots of research on this
Oh yes, "trees of the same species" is the key piece of missing information in the meme
We are a product of the forces that shape us.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
