[layer8]

So if plants are roughly half carbon half water, and the carbon comes from the air while the water comes from the ground, it makes sense that plants spread roughly symmetrically both below the ground and above the ground. Well, a bit more above the ground because they also need photons.

[Laforet]

There is a tendency to draw the silhouette of a tree with roots the same size as the canopy but this image is wrong. The root system of most plants run much shallower than people assume because there is no oxygen in deep soil to sustain the roots. A 300 feet giant Sequoia would only reach 12 to 15 feet into the ground.

[gumby]

(You have the perfect username to be talking about trees)

I was shocked by the shallowness of a sequoia root system (though have never thought of any roots being as deep as their tree is tall!). It feels like the centre of mass would be too high for stability.

The trick is the width of the root system, especially plate roots, which can be over 40X the width of the trunk, and can interlock with neighbouring trees forming a stablising matrix.

There are almost fully underground trees which allows them to survive fire (they just lose the photosynthesising top) and also survive where grasslands have driven out forest cover. I know these trees exist in Africa, but don’t know if they live elsewhere.

I would think of these as “bushes” but really there’s no difference between a shrub and a tree except in the eye of the beholder.

[Laforet]

Yes, sequoia are lucky to be able to rely on each other for support. There are many species of trees are technically capable of growing to hundreds of feet tall but they are invariably lost to strong wind and lightning strikes long before that point.

[flavius29663]

Sequoia is a special case though. They can afford to be so shallow because the live in families, and all the roots in the forest intertwine and they help each other stay upright. Other forests are not that intertwined. I only knew about that rule (mirror the branches) when it comes to oaks in particular. Other trees have evolved differently: palms will dig for water deep down for example.

[schiffern]

"Half" isn't accurate or significant, but...

A tree is a slow-motion explosion, one which can only occur at the boundary (interface) between air and earth.

A human is a slow-motion explosion, one which can only occur at the boundary (interface) between fluid and uterine wall.

We're not so different, because physics doesn't change. Both systems need resources from both sides in order to grow, so an interface is really the only option.

[layer8]

What’s your definition of explosion?

[schiffern]

The usual non-technical / non-specialist definition.

[layer8]

I was hoping there is some interesting concept behind your comment. It’s not quite obvious in which sense exactly you would be seeing a human as an explosion.

[schiffern]

The word choice of "explosion" is only mildly interesting IMO, and only because it emphasizes that trees and people can be (often more accurately) thought of as events instead of as things.

For me, the more interesting / relevant part (and the reason I brought it up in the first place) is the "interface" aspect.

I, likewise, hope there's "some interesting concept" behind your comments too. I can only presume you'll offer a highly stimulating intellectual payoff for answering your highly tedious questions. :-D