Well ... got my Christmas Gift. The framework is only a piece of the puzzle.
My current set up has emersed growth and the prediction for plant forms under CO2/light "unlimited" conditions was "flawed"
Super long internodes, lots of side shoots, ... it's growing like an EI plant under lean N/P. But there are roots ... and there is soil ... and there is decay (nutrient source) and LOADS of CO2 and light.
Forgot that this thing is alive.
The new framework:
Living thing model:
Assumption: the plant wants to survive
The plant uses
1) the nutrient acquisition model, and
2) genetic pre-disposition
To make choices that support the assumption! Seems obvious (the extended internodes above are succession planning).
We can further see this if you let a dutch tank grow out with lots of species (in my previous case was about 35+ species in the tank), the length of internodes, "how straight it grows vs. horizontal to send shoots and outcompete surrounding plants", leaf size, leaf color, etc etc. Don't have photos but recall noticing plant forms change as "surrounding plants grew in" <-- we can say oh it's obvious flow patterns and co2 availability and light -->
but it's naive: chicken egg? Neither -- when you attribute flow/co2/light, you accredit yourself. When you use the living thing model, you accredit the plant.
The irony is when you give the plant the credit it deserves, we can now explain why rotalas go horizontal under "high light conditions" --> you all know what I am talking about (succession planning! Like clockwork, the plant sends side shoots within a "time period" of doing that!!!!!!!)
a parrallel: The nutrient acquisition model is what society gives you. The genetic predisposition is what your parents give you. Between the two of those, you are "geared" to make choices in life ... if you do something that you "shouldn't" have been able to do (rags to riches example - just one example and extreme), then you are an emodiment of evolution.
So, I haven't had coffee with a plant, but I think it is safe to say that:
1) The plant - with the nutrient acquisition model - surveys what nutrients it can readily access from it's "home" and
2) The plant - with its genetic predisosition - is given a series of tools that it can use to cope with conditions that stray to far from an "optimal" (defined as the "perfect set of conditions for the plant to grow" <-- though I think this concept is flawed as the by the nature of time, motion, and inertia, the plant will only thrive in a dynamic system -- the only reason these plants are here today is because they thrive under stress ... the weak were outcompeted).
3) It takes the information from 1), and assesses the current situation with the tools of 2), and voilla makes a choice!
Under N/P limited conditions, we get compact growth with minimal side shoots -- I reckon under HIGH HIGH HIGH CO2 with rich substrate, the plant would probably get large internodes and loads of side shoots -- because the plant is creating a solar hub where it can gain an energy capital ... until it has enough to make an investment.
Sorry to say ... everyone + a few more people are right.
Josh
Ps and example of genetic predisposition could be the unique amount of energy required per unit of Nitrogen in the system … or a unique “EI” per species … for example Anubis can only grow so fast so it may look unaffected under 50pppm nitrate vs say Macrandra under the same conditions.
My current set up has emersed growth and the prediction for plant forms under CO2/light "unlimited" conditions was "flawed"
Super long internodes, lots of side shoots, ... it's growing like an EI plant under lean N/P. But there are roots ... and there is soil ... and there is decay (nutrient source) and LOADS of CO2 and light.
Forgot that this thing is alive.
The new framework:
Living thing model:
Assumption: the plant wants to survive
The plant uses
1) the nutrient acquisition model, and
2) genetic pre-disposition
To make choices that support the assumption! Seems obvious (the extended internodes above are succession planning).
We can further see this if you let a dutch tank grow out with lots of species (in my previous case was about 35+ species in the tank), the length of internodes, "how straight it grows vs. horizontal to send shoots and outcompete surrounding plants", leaf size, leaf color, etc etc. Don't have photos but recall noticing plant forms change as "surrounding plants grew in" <-- we can say oh it's obvious flow patterns and co2 availability and light -->
but it's naive: chicken egg? Neither -- when you attribute flow/co2/light, you accredit yourself. When you use the living thing model, you accredit the plant.
The irony is when you give the plant the credit it deserves, we can now explain why rotalas go horizontal under "high light conditions" --> you all know what I am talking about (succession planning! Like clockwork, the plant sends side shoots within a "time period" of doing that!!!!!!!)
a parrallel: The nutrient acquisition model is what society gives you. The genetic predisposition is what your parents give you. Between the two of those, you are "geared" to make choices in life ... if you do something that you "shouldn't" have been able to do (rags to riches example - just one example and extreme), then you are an emodiment of evolution.
So, I haven't had coffee with a plant, but I think it is safe to say that:
1) The plant - with the nutrient acquisition model - surveys what nutrients it can readily access from it's "home" and
2) The plant - with its genetic predisosition - is given a series of tools that it can use to cope with conditions that stray to far from an "optimal" (defined as the "perfect set of conditions for the plant to grow" <-- though I think this concept is flawed as the by the nature of time, motion, and inertia, the plant will only thrive in a dynamic system -- the only reason these plants are here today is because they thrive under stress ... the weak were outcompeted).
3) It takes the information from 1), and assesses the current situation with the tools of 2), and voilla makes a choice!
Under N/P limited conditions, we get compact growth with minimal side shoots -- I reckon under HIGH HIGH HIGH CO2 with rich substrate, the plant would probably get large internodes and loads of side shoots -- because the plant is creating a solar hub where it can gain an energy capital ... until it has enough to make an investment.
Sorry to say ... everyone + a few more people are right.
Josh
Ps and example of genetic predisposition could be the unique amount of energy required per unit of Nitrogen in the system … or a unique “EI” per species … for example Anubis can only grow so fast so it may look unaffected under 50pppm nitrate vs say Macrandra under the same conditions.
Last edited:
