PDA

View Full Version : Poorly-Scaling Biological "Designs"? (Palm Trees, Arthropods)


lpetrich
03-20-2009, 11:11 AM
An interesting category of design deficiency is limited scaling; designs that do not scale all the way to whatever absolute physical limits may exist. Some examples:

Palm-tree heights

Palm trees are monocot plants; following the typical monocot pattern, they have one stem (the trunk) which goes straight up with constant or tapering thickness, with leaves being continually sprouted from the end as the stem grows. Like other monocots, they do not have outward-growing trunks (secondary growth), and like most other monocots, they do not have side branching.

A problem with this "design" is that the trees eventually get tall enough to become top-heavy. However, conifers and dicot plants avoid this problem by growing outward as well as upward, producing more bulk in their lower trunks, and thus more strength where it is needed. This helps explain why conifers and dicots have been more successful at achieving greater gigantism.

The tallest monocot is the wax palm (Ceroxylon quindiuense) of Colombia, which grows up to 60 m with a trunk diameter of 30 - 40 cm that tapers off to 10 cm at full height. The tallest dicot is the mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) of Tasmania, which grows up to 120 m with a trunk diameter up to 6 m. The tallest conifer is the coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), which grows up to 115 m with a trunk diameter up to 8 m. The bulkiest plant is a close relative of the giant redwood, the giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), which grows up to 95 m with a trunk diameter up to 17 m.

Arthropod skeletons

Arthropods use their outer skins as their skeletons, and they molt their skins as they grow. Having to survive between molts can be awkward, especially on land, where one will not be buoyed by surrounding water.

By contrast, vertebrate skeletons are internal, and are not molted; vertebrates have been much more successful at achieving gigantism. The largest known arthropod is the Middle Devonian eurypterid (sea scorpion) Jaekelopterus rhenaniae, which grew to as much as 2.5 m long.

However, that is far short of what vertebrates have been able to achieve. The longest present-day one on record is a 33-m-long blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), and the longest present-day cold-blooded-one on record is a 12-m-long whale shark (Rhincodon typus). Some extinct sharks and bony fish, like the late-Cenozoic shark Carcharodon megalodon and the mid-Jurassic bony fish Leedsichthys problematicus, grew to whale-shark sizes or larger.

dancer_rnb
03-20-2009, 03:19 PM
but what if gigantism is not your design goal?

We have to choose between speed, and power consumption where I work.
A fast design is not likely to be low power.

Oolon Colluphid
03-20-2009, 03:36 PM
Evolution has no goals. As I read Mark Steel say (http://www.marksteelinfo.com/writing/default.asp?id=99) just today:
The new theory [ID], where it is new, states there are many species that can't have become the way they are through gradual evolution, because if you remove any one part of them the whole structure would collapse. So they must have been created whole, as they are now, without changing. But this ignores the beauty of Darwin's discovery, which is that species change not because they're on a march towards perfection but by accident.

What may be ideal for survival one day is no good once the environment has changed. For example if it gets colder, or the colour of the surroundings changes, the individuals in a species best suited to the new conditions will be the ones to last, and the species becomes altered.

Survival of the fittest means those accidentally matching the requirements of a new situation, not the creatures most prone to winning a scrap. Otherwise by now the only hamsters to survive would be those ones who could pick up the wheel and smash it over their mate's head, and the only surviving parrots would be the ones squawking: "Who wants some? Who wants some?"

Ray Moscow
03-20-2009, 03:41 PM
Most birds species have had better longevity than the large theropods did. Size isn't necessarily good for longevity as a species.

Which is just as well for us. I wouldn't want to venture into my back garden if some of our bird visitors were human size or larger.

nygreenguy
03-20-2009, 09:39 PM
The eucalyptus is debated as actually being the tallest. The most accurately measured eucalyptus falls 1 meter short of the tallest redwood (115.5).

DBH of giant sequoia can get up to 29m! Thats the general sherman. The largest (biomass) living organism on earth.

lpetrich
03-21-2009, 02:52 AM
So it's neck-and-neck, or more precisely, apex-bud-and-apex-bud.

The tallest palm trees have a height-to-diameter ratio of 150 or so, while the tallest redwoods (http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_dimensions.shtml) have height-to-diameter ratios of around 20 to 35. Interestingly, General Sherman (tree) has a ratio of around 11. The usual height for measuring redwood-tree diameters is breast height, or 4'6" (140 cm).

Here's a picture of Ceroxylon quindiuense growing wild in the Cocora Valley near Salento, Colombia. Notice how gangly these trees look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Ceroxylon_quindiuense_cocora.jpg/180px-Ceroxylon_quindiuense_cocora.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ceroxylon_quindiuense_cocora.jpg)
(click on this thumbnail to see a larger version)