[ECOLOG-L] Biology age:size ratios Re: [ECOLOG-L] Data on lifespan vs. body size for plants?

2008-11-28 Thread Wayne Tyson

Francisco, Wirt, and other honorable members of the forum:

I wonder how much water the ESTIMATED age of Larrea* holds when compared to 
less guessful methods such as tree rings. It seems to me that, while it may 
be believable that a clone might last (same genes) for 11,000 years or so, 
it is doubtful that any of the original tissue has lasted that long in any 
form. It would seem relevant to Francisco's question to look at age/size 
ratios in organisms that, for example, do not reproduce asexually. Some oak 
or aspen clones might be old too . . . and then there're fungi reported as 
being the largest organisms . . .


When it comes to relevance to the question, I share Francisco's curiosity, 
and am not quite ready to discard the correlation simply because, if you 
will excuse the inference, of its age.


I have often wondered about bunch grasses that also form rings, apparently 
when the original plant, presumably once located somewhere near the center 
of the ring, dies, with such death occurring at the inner edges of the ring. 
This phenomenon would seem to be a manageable subject of study. I memory 
serves me correctly, Nasella (Stipa) pulchra is one such species I have 
seen, and mortality does not seem to be related to herbivory. However, it 
would be interesting to know what IS related to mortality and longevity 
(and, by the way, how much the phenomenon might be related to habitat 
conditions). While the Nasella examples seem to be resistant to fire as well 
as animal herbivory, this is not to say that pathogens might not be involved 
as well as age. I have noted large isolated (protected from grazing?) 
colonies of Nasella (lepida?) that, judging from the diversity of associated 
indigenous species(e.g., Dichondra occidentalis, perennial geophytes) 
generally absent from such colonies in more exposed locations (associated 
species including alien populations). Studies of such populations, if they 
still can be found, might be interesting, especially with regard to genetic 
uniformity and diversity (I have entertained the idea, for example, that 
such isolated stands just might be clonal remnants of great (who knows HOW 
great?) age. What about giant squids? Tortoises? Parrots? What about those 
and other leaks?


After all, there was no death until sex reared its ugly head, eh? So, 
relatively speaking, what selects for so long a life and for early death? 
What about survivorship curves and ratios and dispersal mechanisms and the 
thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to?


I know not what others may say, but as for me, I'm still curious about this 
age:size ratio thing.


WT

*I confess to not having read the paper.

- Original Message - 
From: Wirt Atmar [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Data on lifespan vs. body size for plants?


Francisco de Castro asks:


I wonder if someone could direct me to studies/webs/data on lifespan of
 plants, or rates of natural mortality (meaning excluding herbivory) as
 related to individual mass/size. More specifically: how long a plant
 will live (if is not eaten by an herbivore) given its size. I have
 searched the ISIWoK extensively and found some papers for trees
 (specially large trees) relating longevity to size at time of death, but
 nothing for small plants. I already have Marbá et al. 2007, PNAS
 104(40), but in their estimates of lifespan, herbivory is included in
 mortality rates.


The correlation between size and longevity that was often talked about does
not seem to hold as much water as it used to. The now-believed-to-be oldest
plant in the world is only a bush, a vegetative creosote ring in the Mojave
Desert, California:


http://www.ourwindowonnature.com/2007/05/06/the-oldest-living-tree-is-a-bush/

The plant is estimated to be 11,700 years old, twice the age of its nearest
competitor, a bristlecone pine, which is also a small tree.

Vasek FC. 1980 Creosote Bush: long+lived clones in the Mojave desert. Amer.
J. Bot. 67. 246-55. Larrea tridentata. Growth rates. Oldest clones may be c.
11,700 years. Growth, Zygophyllaceae

Wirt Atmar






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1810 - Release Date: 11/24/2008 
2:36 PM


Re: [ECOLOG-L] Data on lifespan vs. body size for plants?

2008-11-19 Thread Martin,Patrick
I imagine there is also data on the negative relationship between the growth 
rates of plants/trees vs. longevity.

Patrick


-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco de Castro
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:11 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Data on lifespan vs. body size for plants?

Dear ECOLOGers,
I wonder if someone could direct me to studies/webs/data on lifespan of
plants, or rates of natural mortality (meaning excluding herbivory) as
related to individual mass/size. More specifically: how long a plant
will live (if is not eaten by an herbivore) given its size. I have
searched the ISIWoK extensively and found some papers for trees
(specially large trees) relating longevity to size at time of death, but
nothing for small plants. I already have Marbá et al. 2007, PNAS
104(40), but in their estimates of lifespan, herbivory is included in
mortality rates.
Thanks to all,

Francisco de Castro
Ecology and Ecosystem Modelling. Univ. of Potsdam


Re: [ECOLOG-L] Data on lifespan vs. body size for plants?

2008-11-19 Thread Wirt Atmar
Francisco de Castro asks:

 I wonder if someone could direct me to studies/webs/data on lifespan of
  plants, or rates of natural mortality (meaning excluding herbivory) as
  related to individual mass/size. More specifically: how long a plant
  will live (if is not eaten by an herbivore) given its size. I have
  searched the ISIWoK extensively and found some papers for trees
  (specially large trees) relating longevity to size at time of death, but
  nothing for small plants. I already have Marbá et al. 2007, PNAS
  104(40), but in their estimates of lifespan, herbivory is included in
  mortality rates.

The correlation between size and longevity that was often talked about does
not seem to hold as much water as it used to. The now-believed-to-be oldest
plant in the world is only a bush, a vegetative creosote ring in the Mojave
Desert, California:


http://www.ourwindowonnature.com/2007/05/06/the-oldest-living-tree-is-a-bush/

The plant is estimated to be 11,700 years old, twice the age of its nearest
competitor, a bristlecone pine, which is also a small tree.

Vasek FC. 1980 Creosote Bush: long+lived clones in the Mojave desert. Amer.
J. Bot. 67. 246-55. Larrea tridentata. Growth rates. Oldest clones may be c.
11,700 years. Growth, Zygophyllaceae

Wirt Atmar