Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres

Post by quotemstr » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 2:07 AM UTC

dspeyer wrote: post #11

Someone wrote: post #4

In contrast, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5083564 describes a 2004 study that gives 130m as the limit, and claims a world record of 125m. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree) is 115m. However, this theory is less observational; that, IMO, makes it a better one, even if the maximum height it predicts is of by 10% or so. In fact, that is fairly typical for scaling laws. For example, bumblebees and…

Iirc albatrosses actually can't take off from the ground. They need to jump off a cliff with an updraft. So they're very careful about where they land.

Post by frozenport » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 2:52 AM UTC

aroman wrote: post #6

I remember learning this in my high school biology class a few years ago. I recall the limit as being 120 meters because of the force of gravity. Xylum and phloem... memories.

Post by freiheit » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 7:31 AM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #8

solox3 wrote: post #3

>>Sugars accelerate as they move That's no way to describe the diffusion gradient. Also, this paper does not cover all of Plantae, so for all we know, other Embryophytes may be limited in height by an entirely different factor.

The creatures that we call trees, and the Earth had experimented with a lot of different types of trees, are in fact much higher if we count the roots.

Post by yukoncornelius » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 4:20 PM UTC

aroman wrote: post #6

I remember learning this in my high school biology class a few years ago. I recall the limit as being 120 meters because of the force of gravity. Xylum and phloem... memories.