Trees with “Crown Shyness” Mysteriously Avoid Touching Each Other

I think you mean allelopathic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelopathy

cheers

Having read that page, I'm not sure that Alleopathy would actually explain the "Crown Shyness" phenomena. Yes, it seems to have the effect of creating space by inhibiting the germination of nearby plants or even restricting the growth (as in height) of such plants but it doesn't seem to explain how it maintains a two foot (or whatever) gap precisely following the contour of its own extremities. 

That is not excluding the possibility that some chemical in the leaves, for example, might be detected by a neighbour thereby halting growth in that direction, but is there research on that?

Having read that page, I'm not sure that Alleopathy would actually explain the "Crown Shyness" phenomena. Yes, it seems to have the effect of creating space by inhibiting the germination of nearby plants or even restricting the growth (as in height) of such plants but it doesn't seem to explain how it maintains a two foot (or whatever) gap precisely following the contour of its own extremities. 

That is not to say that some chemical in the leaves, for example, might be detected by a neighbour thereby halting growth in that direction, but is there research on that?

Isn't the article research? Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

Airborne chemicals in windy areas are most likely to effect the wrong trees. I would think

[Laird]

Isn't the article research? Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

How does this explain the precise gap? Can trees sense from how far away a chemical has travelled?

 Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

However, I have to agree with the above objections too.

So some biases  are more ....i don't know robust perhaps?
Than other biases???

What do you mean?

Isn't the article research? Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

I would think that too, but the problem I see is that all leaves are supposed to exude that chemical, so the phenomenon should be seen also among the leaves of a single tree, but that doesn't seem to happen. does it?

How does this explain the precise gap? Can trees sense from how far away a chemical has travelled?

Remember this is all hypothetical. Trees can't detect distance, but like I said before, they can sense the concentration of chemicals in the air. When the concentration reaches a threshold the tree stops growing in that direction.
Do you have a hypothesis?

[Laird]

Trees can't detect distance

Well, right there, you've eliminated the possibility that your theory can explain the observation of a consistent distance for the gap between crowns.

but like I said before, they can sense the concentration of chemicals in the air. When the concentration reaches a threshold the tree stops growing in that direction.

This hypothesis can't explain the consistent distance between crowns. If it's all about concentrations, then a tree couldn't tell the difference between a low concentration that has travelled a short distance (and thus not been reduced much in concentration) versus a high concentration that has travelled a longer distance (and thus been reduced in concentration). It would have no way of maintaining the consistent gaps that we see.

Your theory then is bankrupt. Do you acknowledge this?

Do you have a hypothesis?

Yes. I think (at least some) plants, including the trees in question, have some awareness of objects in their nearby vicinity - how this sense works, I don't know.

Well, right there, you've eliminated the possibility that your theory can explain the observation of a consistent distance for the gap between crowns.


This hypothesis can't explain the consistent distance between crowns. If it's all about concentrations, then a tree couldn't tell the difference between a low concentration that has travelled a short distance (and thus not been reduced much in concentration) versus a high concentration that has travelled a longer distance (and thus been reduced in concentration). It would have no way of maintaining the consistent gaps that we see.

Your theory then is bankrupt. Do you acknowledge this?


Yes. I think (at least some) plants, including the trees in question, have some awareness of objects in their nearby vicinity - how this sense works, I don't know.

I said it was only a hypothesis. How would you know it's bankrupt? You can only know that if you know how trees maintain that remarkable boundary by doing research. Have you done research? I know you have not. Plants certainly do have awareness of their surroundings, but that offers nothing when you have no idea how? That leaves you not even at square 1.