Are trees political ???

[ICT Bill]

Okay, no. at least I don't think so, I'll ask one tomorrow

In another thread we were talking about trees and whether they are able to respond to different manipulations that we "the mobile folk" inflict.
Trees are mobile in a sense, they do move across their area but not to the mall to order sushi

What do you think?

I mentioned Alex Shigo to see if if we could get a conversation going

Have you heard of him?

[gunsnroses]

It has been a while since I opened it up myself, though it may have an answer for you Bill.



The Secret Life of Plants
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Secret Life of Plants

The Secret Life of Plants cover
Author Peter Tompkins, Christopher Bird
Publisher Harper & Row
Publication date 1973
ISBN 0-06-091587-0
OCLC Number 19751846
For the unrelated nature documentary with a similar title written and presented by David Attenborough, see The Private Life of Plants.
Published in 1973, The Secret Life of Plants was written by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. It is described as "A fascinating account of the physical, emotional, and spiritual relations between plants and man."

Essentially, the subject of the book is the idea that plants may be sentient, despite their lack of a nervous system and a brain. This sentience is observed primarily through changes in the plant's conductivity, as through a polygraph, as pioneered by Cleve Backster. The book also contains a summary of Goethe's theory of plant metamorphosis.

That said, this book is about much more than just plants; it delves quite deeply into such topics as the aura, psychophysics, orgone, radionics, kirlian photography, magnetism/magnetotropism, bioelectrics, dowsing, and the history of science.

It was the basis for the 1979 documentary of the same name, with a soundtrack especially recorded by Stevie Wonder.

[phasthound]

Some trees lean to the left, some lean to the right. :)

Smallaxe, please read more of Shigo's definitions of words like "feed, heal, bleed". For instance, when humans heal we rebuild, trees instead seal off damaged zones and compartmentalize. Totally different mechanisms.

[Stillwater]

I submit that all Deciduous trees lean heavily to the left, once a year their behavior is all to predictable.

[Smallaxe]

Some trees lean to the left, some lean to the right. :)

Smallaxe, please read more of Shigo's definitions of words like "feed, heal, bleed". For instance, when humans heal we rebuild, trees instead seal off damaged zones and compartmentalize. Totally different mechanisms.

I did get a sense of what he was referring to in the bit that I read. Symantics... or not...

We had a goat tied off in the yard and moved, by the wife or kids, around to mow the grass. She was tied off near a maple tree, during the heat of the day, then moved to new grass towards evening. Well during her rest period of the day she would munch on the bark of the tree, through the cambium to the heartwood.
It was a huge tree and it didn't seem like a big deal, until one day I went to the garden and actually saw the whole trunk. It was close to being girdled in the sense that without the uneaten tracks of bark connecting the above to the below, it was a gonner.
What happened next was more akin to skin graft growing back over an open wound than anything else.
xylems and phloems are analogous to vessels and capillaries. One is plant and one is animal. Whenever one of these is broken it will exude blood or sap until its particular mechanism of platelets seal off the end. Capillaries will reroute to feed the tissue in question and bark will grow over an open wound and continue feeding the tree to the top.

Obviously they are not exactly the same, but niether are there differences so profound that others haven't noticed it. Those who observe and study responses of all living things and how they work have something to contribute.

I have no doubt that there is something about trees that can be a eureka moment for many people, that has come from what others have observed. His ideas of pruning is what I've always done. Sometimes I see something in individual plants that make me say "Oh, don't do that again."

I would like to read selected articles of many things, but buying a book to "rock my tree world", is not something I buy into. :)

[ron mexico75]

They say that about all arborists
must be a stereotype

Ha ha ha........is that true?

Just seemed like one of those "deep thoughts" one might have while flying high.

[phasthound]

They say that about all arborists
must be a stereotype

Hey! I'm strictly a beer drinker. :drinkup:

[phasthound]

Smallaxe,

Shigo's research and unconventional insights changed professional tree care practice dramatically. Much of what is accepted now as good protocol is due to Shigo. But, if that kind of stuff doesn't float your boat, that's OK. :)

[lawncuttinfoo]

Some trees lean to the left, some lean to the right. :)


But people who have at least half a brain, strive to grow and know that the best trees grow straight up the middle.

[Smallaxe]

Smallaxe,

Shigo's research and unconventional insights changed professional tree care practice dramatically. Much of what is accepted now as good protocol is due to Shigo. But, if that kind of stuff doesn't float your boat, that's OK. :)

That is not what I meant. What I meant was that I don't read books any more other than reference. Since the net - I have questions answered by research, there.

The articles I've read so far is nothing new to me. It seems the common sense approach he used is what many people had used in the logging and plant care culture, here in rural Wisco.

It could be like the organic lawncare idea. It was never stopped in rural Wisco, while the cities are rediscovering it. :)
What does Shigo say about fertilizing trees? I haven't been able to find that yet.

[phasthound]

That is not what I meant. What I meant was that I don't read books any more other than reference. Since the net - I have questions answered by research, there.

The articles I've read so far is nothing new to me. It seems the common sense approach he used is what many people had used in the logging and plant care culture, here in rural Wisco.

It could be like the organic lawncare idea. It was never stopped in rural Wisco, while the cities are rediscovering it. :)
What does Shigo say about fertilizing trees? I haven't been able to find that yet.

Please start reading books again!!!:)
The articles you've read may be nothing new to you, but at the time of their publication they caused an uproar becasue much of what he said after doing the research went against long held common sense approaches.
http://www.shigoandtrees.com/docs/Publications%20list.pdf
Here's a short bio of the man
http://www.shigoandtrees.com/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=5

What I admire about him is that he was able to do the in depth scientific research in a lab, get out in the woods to work hands on with trees, evaluate what he saw with a neutral mind and explain it with enthusiasm, wisdom and knowledge.

I believe I posted some excerpts of what Shigo said about fertilizing trees and that is what got you interested in him.

Science has taken organic lawn care far past what it used to be.

[phasthound]

But people who have at least half a brain, strive to grow and know that the best trees grow straight up the middle.

Yes, and we need more of them to speak up. Not talkin' trees here.

[Smallaxe]

... Science has taken organic lawn care far past what it used to be.

I don't think that science has improved the process as much as it has explained what the observations were demonstrating about success and failure.
I remember John Jeavons' term, nutriment[/n] and how that may have been explained by science now... at least in part...
Then there is terra preta, which science has yet to explain.

Even moreso is that science has a tendancy to say that practices - that have worked for generations - can't possibly work ... and shouldn't be thought of, as a possibilty.
It s the old adage , [b]"Are you going to believe me, or, are you going to believe your eyes?"

I enjoy learning new things... however, bs is irritating... :)

[Grohorganic]

WOW i think i will just go back to building my worm bins..............

[Smallaxe]

Worm Bins!!??! Worms are destroying the Northwoods and you are giving them aid and comfort!!??! :)

[Grohorganic]

so.... send them down here to the worm GITMO. then fund me for there safe containment. with federal funds and all!!!! while your at it get some grass carp together and some JPB and we can have a good old time!!!!:waving:

also FYI its not red worms or India blues that are eating your forest, any ways off to watch my un dredged lake fill with pond scum and my orchid bees pollinate my flowers

[Grohorganic]

or better yet just lay it out for us surfs to understand. that will save some time and typing

[Smallaxe]

I don't know what you are talking about but if the feds are paying you it must be a good thing.
I don't know what India Blues are. Nightcrawlers are the "invaders" and they too eat only decaying vegetable matter.
Which Wildflowers, are they lacking, in their b4 and after picture that proves they are killing the northwoods? I would like to to get more 'proof' than a lieing picture.

[ICT Bill]

I don't know what you are talking about but if the feds are paying you it must be a good thing.
I don't know what India Blues are. Nightcrawlers are the "invaders" and they too eat only decaying vegetable matter.
Which Wildflowers, are they lacking, in their b4 and after picture that proves they are killing the northwoods? I would like to to get more 'proof' than a lieing picture.

"proof" of what??? that earthworms exist??

[Grohorganic]

"proof" of what??? that earthworms exist??

send me 5$ and I will eat some .LOLOLOL

[Smallaxe]

"proof" of what??? that earthworms exist??

I think at this point "Earthworms" have been 'redefined', therefore they do not exist. Only what they are imagined to be, can truly exist.
It would be interestting to know whether Alex Shigo, the guy who believed in research outside the lab, the guy that believed "scientists" should be out in the field, so they have a real understanding of the big picture , you know, that guy... if he had any scientific comments about earthworms killing the northwoods, by loosening and mixing the topsoil... :laugh:

[Smallaxe]

I think at this point "Earthworms" have been 'redefined', therefore they do not exist. Only what they are imagined to be, can truly exist.
It would be interestting to know whether Alex Shigo, the guy who believed in research outside the lab, the guy that believed "scientists" should be out in the field, so they have a real understanding of the big picture , you know, that guy... if he had any scientific comments about earthworms killing the northwoods, by loosening and mixing the topsoil... :laugh:

So Alex Shigo never commented on it? Has anyone read his books?

[Grohorganic]

here Ax, I found this for you, we have some of the same issues from bait on the loose..........

[Smallaxe]

This is all I ever see. A few bland statements that can't be proven and doesn't make sense.

How do we know that there were no earthworms on the N. Am. continent in the 1700s?
Why are these plants here now - or until recently - so that we know they don't thrive now?
Just in my lifetime the deer population has gone from rare to vermin all over the midwest. They have wiped-out Blueberry Hill - that - has nothing to do earthworms, and yet we are to believe they "know" what it was 3-4 hundred years ago.

Not all of us blindly follow the experts, on questionable statements. This one idea is as stupid as any I've heard. :)
My first 2 questions need to be answered rationally, b4 they have any credibility at all.

[Kiril]

This is all I ever see. A few bland statements that can't be proven and doesn't make sense.

Can I roll my eyes? :rolleyes:

Question .... do you ever bother to read any research before you spout off?

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/publications.html

[Grohorganic]

Can I roll my eyes? :rolleyes:

Question .... do you ever bother to read any research before you spout off?

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/publications.html

present olive branch, receive whip from said branch. oh well.

some folks the glass is not 1/2 full or empty, its just water:cry:

[Smallaxe]

Can I roll my eyes? :rolleyes:

Question .... do you ever bother to read any research before you spout off?

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/research/publications.html

Hey thanks, Kiril... Finally a source of some decent articles! ...Better than the elementary textbook, with the b4 and after pictures, as evidence. :laugh:

I still find it difficult to believe that there are no earthworms west of MN, but I can't make any dogmatic claims about that, so I won't. They claim to have the leading edge of the invasion force right there, and I can let that ride until I find out whether or not that is true. At least now, there are sensible talking points.

[Kiril]

Hey thanks, Kiril... Finally a source of some decent articles! ...Better than the elementary textbook, with the b4 and after pictures, as evidence. :laugh:

Axe, I posted that link the first time you started going off about your worm issues, almost 2 years ago.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2171870&postcount=17

[Smallaxe]

Axe, I posted that link the first time you started going off about your worm issues, almost 2 years ago.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2171870&postcount=17

I remember... And that was the only thing posted till now... The brief page from Grohorganic and then some actual papers from you.

I was wondering why there was nothing better out there, all this time. :)

[Smallaxe]

present olive branch, receive whip from said branch. oh well.

some folks the glass is not 1/2 full or empty, its just water:cry:

If that was in reference to me, I apologize. As you see this is a history of Kiril trying to convince me of the evil worms without even an attempt at a research paper. Until now. :)

[Kiril]

If that was in reference to me, I apologize. As you see this is a history of Kiril trying to convince me of the evil worms without even an attempt at a research paper. Until now. :)

I haven't been trying to convince you of anything axe. I merely pointed you to the research 2 years ago and asked you to demonstrate how it was inaccurate. You could not.

[Smallaxe]

I haven't been trying to convince you of anything axe. I merely pointed you to the research 2 years ago and asked you to demonstrate how it was inaccurate. You could not.

It was a 4th grade textbook that said earthworms are killing the northwoods and the evidence was a b4 and after picture. Period.. that was it... How can one 'demonstrate' the inaccuracies of that?!?! There was no demonstration of accuracy...
The fourth grade textbook is written to make kids believe something, not understand the thinking behind it.
It wasn't written to demonstrate reasons for things or to lay out the research involved that lead to those conclusions. That's why the whole business was silly.

I'll have to look through the papers presented now and see if there is a valid point to be made... the jury is still out... too much research is interpretted through a presuppositional filter that ultimately invaldidates the conclusion....

I lost confidence in a lot of scientists when they claimed that the 1/4 inch varves in the rocks were annual layers of surface dirt that hardened over millions of years. Perfectly undisturbed layers of surface covered next year by another perfectly undisturbed surface dirt. They were serious... So you'll forgive me if I don't "Wow!" every "scientific" claim, without close scrutiny... :)

[Kiril]

It was a 4th grade textbook that said earthworms are killing the northwoods and the evidence was a b4 and after picture. Period.. that was it... How can one 'demonstrate' the inaccuracies of that?!?! There was no demonstration of accuracy...
The fourth grade textbook is written to make kids believe something, not understand the thinking behind it.
It wasn't written to demonstrate reasons for things or to lay out the research involved that lead to those conclusions. That's why the whole business was silly.

What the hell are you talking about. Again .... the post where I pointed you to the research 2 years ago.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2171870&postcount=17

Then a couple of posts later, after you went off on your tirade.

If you think the information and findings are incorrect, then you need to read the publications and formulate a logical case against them by either presenting a discussion of research that contradicts their findings and/or do your own research.


I lost confidence in a lot of scientists when they claimed that the 1/4 inch varves in the rocks were annual layers of surface dirt that hardened over millions of years. Perfectly undisturbed layers of surface covered next year by another perfectly undisturbed surface dirt. They were serious...

What the hell are you talking about?

So you'll forgive me if I don't "Wow!" every "scientific" claim, without close scrutiny... :)

Science is an ever changing field of study and is never settled. The problem with layman "scrutiny" is lack of understanding, which leads to decisions/opinions based on ideals (like your politics), and not on a sound and informed review of the science.

If we knew the nature of the universe and everything in it with 100% certainty, then there would be no need for study. IMO Axe, you desperately need to do some reading on the scientific method, then create your own study so you can understand what it (science) is all about.

[Smallaxe]

What the hell are you talking about. Again .... the post where I pointed you to the research 2 years ago.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2171870&postcount=17

Then a couple of posts later, after you went off on your tirade.






What the hell are you talking about?



Science is an ever changing field of study and is never settled. The problem with layman "scrutiny" is lack of understanding, which leads to decisions/opinions based on ideals (like your politics), and not on a sound and informed review of the science.

If we knew the nature of the universe and everything in it with 100% certainty, then there would be no need for study. IMO Axe, you desperately need to do some reading on the scientific method, then create your own study so you can understand what it (science) is all about.

Ok, I don't remember seeing that last time. The only one I remembered was the one I have been referring to. I suppose I was busy that day and figured on getting back to it, once I was home from FL. Then of course, spaced it out completely.

As far as "layman" scrutiny, being invalid and we must "trust" the experts... I will continue to say that:
If all the experts agree, then maybe (its true)... If some experts disagree, then maybe not... If some experts are 'bashing' any dissenting experts, then definately not.

There are way too many followers in this country already, and you know the frustration of people not realizing the concept of "The regionally appropriate plant for a sustainable landscape", but everyone continues to follow the fertilizer and irrigation mentality. That continues in minds of the "Experts", because they will continue to sell fertilizer.

[Kiril]

As far as "layman" scrutiny, being invalid and we must "trust" the experts...

I never said we must implicitly "trust" the experts. What I did say is that a layman interpretation of science (for example your ridiculous political blogs where you get all your GW info) is about as far from an informed opinion/review as you will get.

There are way too many followers in this country already, and you know the frustration of people not realizing the concept of "The regionally appropriate plant for a sustainable landscape", but everyone continues to follow the fertilizer and irrigation mentality. That continues in minds of the "Experts", because they will continue to sell fertilizer.

B.S. Axe. The reason why people continue to "follow the fertilizer and irrigation mentality" is because that is what they have been lead to expect by corporations, society, and by the landscape industry in general. You see evidence of this EVERY DAY here and it has nothing to do with knowing what is best, and has everything to do with MONEY! As long as people continue to put money first, the environment will always lose.

[Smallaxe]

I never said we must implicitly "trust" the experts. What I did say is that a layman interpretation of science (for example your ridiculous political blogs where you get all your GW info) is about as far from an informed opinion/review as you will get..

But, still not as bad as those millions who folllow it to the point that they can't accept it is a fraud and the truth is - no one can even know. The computer models are not god-like and niether are the scientist that lie about what they think they know for the sake of gov't grants.
The gov'ts need a global carbon tax, and that is all there is to it.


B.S. Axe. The reason why people continue to "follow the fertilizer and irrigation mentality" is because that is what they have been lead to expect by corporations, society, and by the landscape industry in general. You see evidence of this EVERY DAY here and it has nothing to do with knowing what is best, and has everything to do with MONEY! As long as people continue to put money first, the environment will always lose.

You are exactly correct, where we differ is whether or not this affects what is taught in gov't schools and Universities.