After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

CrazyNeutrino said:

After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Which makes a mallee tree what?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Why a single trunk or is it like you said the simple definition

The Famous Eccles sings,

“I talk to the trees,
dats why they put me away”

Waits for a round of applause,

not a sausage.

bob(from black rock) said:

The Famous Eccles sings,

“I talk to the trees,
dats why they put me away”

Waits for a round of applause,

not a sausage.

stands on chair and applauds wildly

• stands on chair and applauds wildly

puts sausages back in the fridge

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Which makes a mallee tree what?

A mallee has multiple trunks growing from a common woody lignotuber. Trees, Shrubs, Herbs, etc are ALL well defined and used in a scientific context, largely because it is the simplest way of describing a plant structure. If you know a better way, I’m sure you will be held aloft and praised.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Why a single trunk or is it like you said the simple definition

A woody trunk is also an important component. For instance there are plants with a single trunk, which are not termed trees because they have a pithy centre, grasstrees, palms, etc.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

After 300 Years of Collecting, Nearly 12,000 Amazon Tree Species Are Found

If Pokémon Go players think catching 151 different pocket monsters on their smartphones is tough, imagine trying to collect more than 15,000.

That’s what botanists studying the trees of the Amazon rain forest have been attempting for more than 300 years. So far, intrepid explorers have found a total of 11,676 different tree species, a new study reports.

more…

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Um, what do they count as a “tree”? It’s not a recognised botanical category. Found it, the definition of a “tree” is: “trees are seed plants that exceed 10 cm diameter at breast height”.

“It’s written by a bunch of ecologists who got impatient”.

LOL. I can see how that could happen. I often get impatient with the speed of research myself.

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Why classify a multi trunked tree as something different when everything else about it is the same

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Why classify a multi trunked tree as something different when everything else about it is the same

A mallee is quite different from a tree eucalypt. After a bushfire the mallee will quickly grow new trunks from a large woody lignotuber, whereas the trees do not have this adaptation to frequent bushfires and must reproduce from seed. You seldom if ever find mallees in dense forest areas, but are generally the most common eucalypt in fire prone area like heath and open mallee woodland.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Why classify a multi trunked tree as something different when everything else about it is the same

A mallee is quite different from a tree eucalypt. After a bushfire the mallee will quickly grow new trunks from a large woody lignotuber, whereas the trees do not have this adaptation to frequent bushfires and must reproduce from seed. You seldom if ever find mallees in dense forest areas, but are generally the most common eucalypt in fire prone area like heath and open mallee woodland.

Ok thanks

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

A tree for your information is (put simply) a plant that produces a single woody trunk, It is a recognised botanical term and very commonly used in scientific literature.

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Nothing to do with bushfires.

You’re talking about things you know nothing about – as always.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not in this case, and not in Australia.

In Australia a single eucalyptus species very often, in fact more often than not, varies from single trunk to multiple trunks depending on environment and water supply.

In this case, where the category tree is determined from digital photography, the 10 cm diameter at breast height is used.

But thanks for the information.

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Nothing to do with bushfires.

You’re talking about things you know nothing about – as always.

Like you and the climate.
LOL

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Gee you write so much rubbish! A single trunked eucalypt is a TREE, a multi-trunked eucalypt is a MALLEE, both well defined and scientifically used terms very commonly used in Australian scientific classification, which I might add, the latter is an adaptation to frequent bushfires. Tree trunk diameter has NOTHING to do with being a tree, but maybe used as a characteristic to determine minimum sized plants for a particular study.

Nothing to do with bushfires.

You’re talking about things you know nothing about – as always.

Like you and the climate.
LOL

There you go again.

I’m not the climate poster.

Do get it right for once.

i thought the lignotubers were an adaptation to low rainfall. they store carbohydrates and some water.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Nothing to do with bushfires.

You’re talking about things you know nothing about – as always.

Like you and the climate.
LOL

There you go again.

I’m not the climate poster.

Do get it right for once.

Well please tell us why you think mallee eucalypts have nothing to do with bushfires? And by the way, you mirrored the Observer so thoroughly that your views of global warming were virtually identical.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Like you and the climate.
LOL

There you go again.

I’m not the climate poster.

Do get it right for once.

Well please tell us why you think mallee eucalypts have nothing to do with bushfires? And by the way, you mirrored the Observer so thoroughly that your views of global warming were virtually identical.

They will branch from seed without being within sniff of a fire and don’t try me with the smoke germination either.

ChrispenEvan said:

i thought the lignotubers were an adaptation to low rainfall. they store carbohydrates and some water.

Well they contain nutrient reserves too, but heath and mallee eucalypts also occur in well watered areas (they do not just grow in the mallee region). However, single trunked (trees) eucalypts, cannot survive in frequently burnt regions as they die during severe fires and must reproduce from seed and then must survive long enough to reach flowering a seed producing maturity. Mallees in these fire prone regions, re-grow very quickly from dormant buds of the fully developed lignotuber that is fire resistant, therefore is not only able to survive these zones, but thrive.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

There you go again.

I’m not the climate poster.

Do get it right for once.

Well please tell us why you think mallee eucalypts have nothing to do with bushfires? And by the way, you mirrored the Observer so thoroughly that your views of global warming were virtually identical.

They will branch from seed without being within sniff of a fire and don’t try me with the smoke germination either.

Well you are incorrect again. Mallees grown from seed will initially, usually grow into a single trunked tree, but once a fire passes through and kills this trunk, the plant will develop other trunks. The same thing happens if that single trunk is damaged when young. Seed germination with mallees is far less important for reproduction than from the lignotuber, therefore smoke germination is not important with these plants, plus their seed will usually readily germinate without the influence of fire or smoke. Was wondering if you know the difference between a mallee and a tree?