DOCSLIB.ORG

Goethe's Plant Morphology: the Seeds of Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Goethe's Plant Morphology: the Seeds of Evolution JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch Goethe’s Plant Morphology: The Seeds of Evolution TANYA KELLEY It has long been debated whether botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), and the scientific writing of Johann the continuous view of nature, as Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) exemplified in the work of the English provided the seeds for the theory of naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882). evolution. Scholars have argued both Although best known for his sides with equal passion. German literary works, such as Faust, Die Leiden biologist and philosopher, Ernst Haeckel des jungen Werther, and Wilhelm (1834-1919) wrote, “Jean and Lamarck Meister, Goethe was also deeply and Wolfgang Goethe stand at the head involved with the sciences. Some of his of all the great philosophers of nature biographers lament that Goethe’s literary who first established a theory of organic productivity was impeded by all the time development, and who are the illustrious he spent pursuing his interests in fellow workers of Darwin.”1 Taking the comparative anatomy, metallurgy, opposite stance was Chancellor of Berlin meteorology, color theory and botany.3 University, Emil du Bois Reymond Goethe himself said that he valued his (1818-1896). Du Bois was embarrassed work as a scientist more than his poetic by Goethe’s forays into science. He work.4 He pursued a wide range of wrote, “Beside the poet, the scientist interests over the course of his 83 years Goethe fades into the background. Let of life. Until the very end of his life he us at long last put him to rest.”2 I argue was vitally interested in science. In his that Goethe’s scientific writings carry in last letter, Goethe wrote about the them the seeds of the theory of evolution. debates on fixity of species taking place Goethe’s works on plant morphology in the French Royal Academy of reflects the conflicting ideas of his era on Science. Goethe’s thoughts on science the discreteness and on the stability of are both original but also reflect the spirit species. Goethe’s theory of plant of the times. morphology provides a link between the Goethe is described sometimes as discontinuous view of nature, as an Enlightenment and sometimes as a exemplified in works of the Swedish Romantic thinker, for indeed his life spans both of these periods. In many 1 Goethe, Wolfgang Johann von. Goethe’s Botanical respects, Goethe’s approach to science Writings, translated by Bertha Mueller. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1952. 15. 2 Magnus, Rudolf. Goethe as a Scientist. translated by 3 Goethe’s Botanical Writings, 6. Heinz Norden. Leipzig: Henry Schuman, 1947. xi. 4 Magnus, 42. 1 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution reflects those typical of eighteenth more accurate and suitable for science by century Europe. Goethe, as were most of adopting universal languages either, as in his contemporaries, was swept up in the case of Linnaeus, by using Latin in a geometrical spirit ushered in by the systematic way, or, as in the case of German mathematician Gottfried György Kalmár, by using calculus as a Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) who is basis for an invented universal language. credited with the dissemination of Goethe was also interested in the debates calculus.5 Scientists of the eighteenth about accuracy in scientific language. century embraced mathematical method, On his journey to Italy from 1786-1788, exact definition, and proof of Goethe wrote about the arbitrariness of propositions, and applied these rigorous nomenclature and played with the methods of analysis to the development descriptive and labeling functions they of systematic. The Enlightenment fulfill.7 Goethe is often described as an ushered in an era wherein people turned Enlightenment thinker who was fully away from religion to explain the natural immersed in the age of quantifications world, and sought explanation instead and, as we shall see, his work in the through the search for the laws of nature. sciences reflects much of the geometrical These effects could be felt not just in the spirit of that era. sciences but also in the daily lives of the Goethe’s work in the sciences, eighteenth century Europeans. People however, also reflects the subsequent were witnessing the rapid dissection and Zeitgeist or spirit of the times. Although classification of the world around them. he partook in the spirit of quantification Since 1673 the measure of time had of the Enlightenment, the following era become more accurate through the of Romanticism equally influenced him. invention of Christian Huygens’ “Goethe’s Faust spurns knowledge pendulum clock. ‘extorted with levers and screws’, Goethe was also affected by the longing instead for a grasp of Nature’s controversies surrounding the adoption secret elements, her hidden active forces, of a more accurate and uniform system the harmony of the whole of her parts.”8 of measure, the decimal system. In Instead of the geometrical spirit, which Faust Goethe has the witches toy with strove to dissect, systematize and find alternate numbering systems not based the mechanisms of nature, the guiding on ten.6 Even people’s vernacular spirit of the Romantic era became known language was slated for improvement in the German-speaking world as during the age of quantification. There Naturphilosophie or natural philosophy. were several proposals to make language The Romantic scientists revolted against the analytical methods of their 5 Leibnitz vies with English physicist Isaac Newton (1642- predecessors and sought to apply more 1727) for credit for the invention of calculus. It is Leibnitz’ synthetic methods; instead of looking for system of notation, however, that came into widespread use. 6 “Desired Reconciliations: On Language as Experiment,” 7 “Italienische Reise” Werke, 11: 461. MLN, Vol. 103, No. 5. Comparative Literature. (Dec., 8 Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine in their 1988) 1056-1071. Preface to Romanticism and the Sciences, xix. 2 JIDRJournalofInterdisciplinaryResearch fine differences Romantic scientists the bean counters and aggregators, we looked for similarities. The German will take as our example the field of biologist Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus botany. Goethe devoted many years to (1776-1837) wrote that in the new the study of plants and in his voluminous science of life “the observations of the writings on the topic, we will see, vital phenomena of animals and plants portrayed the struggle to come to terms … receive their proper place and unite with perhaps the most pregnant question themselves into a whole…”9 The French of his generation, namely the anatomist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire discontinuity or continuity of nature. (1772-1844) believed that nature made Some botanists believed species to be all living beings with one unique plan. discrete and stable, whereas others Immanuel Kant (1723-1804) emphasized believed that species blended from one to that scientists should examine the idea of the next with difficult-to-discern a whole in its natural context. Kant’s boundaries and that species also changed thought guided the German explorer and over time. Goethe’s work on plant naturalist Alexander von Humboldt morphology reflects the conflicting ideas (1769-1859) to describe the vegetation of of his era. After a brief look at the new world in its native geography contemporary ideas on fixity of species instead of merely bringing back plant held by prominent Enlightenment and specimens in order to classify their parts. Romantic natural scientists, we will Just as he had been intimately immersed place Goethe’s botanical work in context in scientific developments of the by examining primarily the botanical Enlightenment, Goethe was involved systems and of Carl Linnaeus. with the scientific enterprises of Goethe’s contemporaries all came Romantic thinkers, and is credited by from a tradition of natural history that some as one of the leading figures in the placed high value on accurately passing promotion of synthetic method. on information collected by ancient At the heart of the difference authorities, whether Biblical or between the Enlightenment and Christianized knowledge of the ancient Romantic worldview lies the question of Greeks. Over the centuries ancient how much of the world is knowable to authority was passed down through man. Many scientists of the manuscripts, which were repeatedly Enlightenment believed that it was just a copied by hand. Such manual copying matter of time until every last word, led to the perpetuation and accumulation mollusc, tuber, and compound was of mistakes. Scientists of the cataloged whereas many scientists of the Renaissance paved the way for Romantic era doubted that this feat could Enlightenment science in that they began ever be achieved. Although there are to look for answers in nature instead of many fascinating studies in in written documents. By turning to the encyclopedism and the backlash against natural world with a fresh eye, scientists found that neither the Bible nor the 9 My translation from Biologie, oder Philosophie der ancients had fully accounted for all of lebenden Naturfür Naturforscher und Aertzte, 7-8. 3 Goethe’sPlantMorphology:TheSeedsofEvolution nature. In the Renaissance science specialization, natural selection and became the hobby and occupation of evolution of species are accepted and are numerous upper class men. Much of the seemingly obvious, but in Goethe’s era scientific work these people did had to creationists and transmutationalists were be done in secret because new on more equal footing. Enlightenment discoveries and interpretations could scientists who placed great store in the propose a threat to church order. One past, generally held views of natural famous example of such a case is that of history based on religion and Galileo, who was tried for heresy Aristotelianism. There were those who because of his views. By the eighteenth believed in remnants of the ancient century the belief in the absolute authorities and the creation story, others authority of the Bible and of the ancients who were, with varying degrees of had begun to wane, and it had become vociferousness, secular possible for men of varied classes to transmutationalists, and a whole range in engage in science without the fear of between.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Morphological Description of Plants: New Perspectives in Development and Evolution
    ® International Journal of Plant Developmental Biology ©2010 Global Science Books Morphological Description of Plants: New Perspectives in Development and Evolution 1* 2 Emilio Cervantes • Juana G . de Diego 1 IRNASA-CSIC. Apartado 257. 37080. Salamanca. Spain 2 Dept Bioquímica y Biología Molecular. Campus Miguel de Unamuno. Universidad de Salamanca. Spain Corresponding author : * [email protected] ABSTRACT The morphological description of plants has been fundamental in the history of botany and provided the keys for taxonomy. Nevertheless, in biology, a discipline governed by the interest in function and based on reductionist approaches, the analysis of forms has been relegated to second place. Plants contain organs and structures that resemble geometrical forms. Plant ontogeny may be seen as a sequence of growth processes including periods of continuous growth with modification that stop at crucial points often represented by structures of remarkable similarity to geometrical figures. Instead of the tradition in developmental studies giving more importance to animal models, we propose that the modular type of plant development may serve to remark conceptual aspects in that may be useful in studies with animals and contribute to original views of evolution. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Keywords: concepts, description, geometry, structure INTRODUCTION: PLANTS OFFER NEW reflects a more general situation in Biology, a discipline APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT that has matured from the experimental protocols and views of biochemistry, where the predominant role of experimen- The study of development is today a major biological disci- tation has contributed to a decline in basic aspects that need pline. Although it was traditionally more focused in animal to be more descriptive, such as those related with mor- systems, increased emphasis in plant development may phology.
    [Show full text]
  • Lab 2: Plant Morphology: Leaves
    Lab 2: Leaves 1 Name: ______________________________________ Date/Lab time: _________________ Lab 2: Plant Morphology: Leaves Supplies: Carnivorous plant Leaf types Cactus with needles Simple- Succulent leafed plant Sessile- without petiole Monocots and Dicots Compound- Equisetum Pinnate Mother of 1000’s Palmate Ginkgo , pine, fern, etc. Vocabulary to know: Abaxial surface, Adaxial surface, Blade, Compound leaves, Leaflet, Lobed, Midrib, Palmate compound leaf , Petiole, Phyllotaxis, Pinnate compound leaf , Serrated, Sessile leaves, Simple leaves. Introduction: A leaf is defined by its formation (during its very early stage, a leaf extends over and protects the shoot tip) (google shoot meristem). Find a live shoot tip on a plant supplied in lab. Note that you have to dig through a lot of very young leaves to get to it. This definition holds true for even modified leaves. Look at the shoot tip of the cactus (ouch! don't touch it!). Note the cactus spines (needles) form over the shoot tip, thus needles are leaves, though highly modified. Another common feature of leaves is the presence of axillary buds (see figure on next page). Locate a leave's axillary bud just above the point where the leaf attaches to the stem. Axillary buds have the potential of forming new branches or flowers. Leaf Arraignment on Stem The arraignment of leaves on a branch is called phyllotaxis . Note branches with alternate phyllotaxis (leaves arranged alternately one per node), opposite phyllotaxis (leaves arranged 2 per node) or whorled phyllotaxis (more than 2 leaves per node). Identify plants with these types of phyllotaxis. Whorled phyllotaxis is less common. See sweet woodruff and horsetail ( Equisetum ) for examples.
    [Show full text]
  • PLANT MORPHOLOGY: Vegetative & Reproductive
    PLANT MORPHOLOGY: Vegetative & Reproductive Study of form, shape or structure of a plant and its parts Vegetative vs. reproductive morphology http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peanut_plant_NSRW.jpg Vegetative morphology http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/jwahlert/bio1003/images/anthophyta/peanut_cotyledon.jpg Seed = starting point of plant after fertilization; a young plant in which development is arrested and the plant is dormant. Monocotyledon vs. dicotyledon cotyledon = leaf developed at 1st node of embryo (seed leaf). “Textbook” plant http://bio1903.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch35/35_02AngiospermStructure.jpg Stem variation Stem variation http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/botf99/stems&leaves/barrel.jpg http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Gilbert_Muth/art0042.jpg http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/botf99/stems&leaves/xstawb.gif http://biology.uwsp.edu/courses/botlab/images/1854$.jpg Vegetative morphology Leaf variation Leaf variation Leaf variation Vegetative morphology If the primary root persists, it is called a “true root” and may take the following forms: taproot = single main root (descends vertically) with small lateral roots. fibrous roots = many divided roots of +/- equal size & thickness. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/nursery-weeds/weedspeciespage/OXALIS/oxalis_taproot.jpg adventitious roots = roots that originate from stem (or leaf tissue) rather than from the true root. All roots on monocots are adventitious. (e.g., corn and other grasses). http://plant-disease.ippc.orst.edu/plant_images/StrawberryRootLesion.JPG Root variation http://bio1903.nicerweb.com/Locked/media/ch35/35_04RootDiversity.jpg Flower variation http://130.54.82.4/members/Okuyama/yudai_e.htm Reproductive morphology: flower Yuan Yaowu Flower parts pedicel receptacle sepals petals Yuan Yaowu Flower parts Pedicel = (Latin: ped “foot”) stalk of a flower.
    [Show full text]
  • BIO 102 General Biology Lecture Outline Plantae I. Introduction A. Taxonomy Domain
    BIO 102 General Biology Lecture Outline Plantae I. Introduction A. Taxonomy Domain: Eukarya Kingdom: Plantae B. General characteristics Multicellular Autotrophic / Photosynthetic Cellulose cell wall Reproduction – alternation of generations C. Life cycle Alternation of generations Haploid = gametophyte, which produces gametes via mitosis Diploid = sporophyte, which produces spores via meiosis Meiosis = cell division from 2n to n Mitosis = cell division either from 2n to 2n, OR from n to n Fertilization = combine gametes: n + n = 2n Homospory vs. heterospory II. Major Groups of Plants A. Characterized by 4 criteria in branching manner Vascular vs. non-vascular Seed production or lack thereof Types of seeds produced Development & morphology B. Non-tracheophytes (nonvascular plants) General characteristics No vascular tissue Gametophyte (haploid) generation dominant Requires water for reproduction Examples Liverworts Hornworts Mosses Moss reproductive cycle C. Tracheophytes General characteristics Vascular tissue: Xylem and Phloem Specialized tissues: Leaves Roots Stems Cuticles Stomata Sporophyte (diploid) generation dominant Divisions based on seed-bearing vs. non-seed bearing (Seed vs. spore) D. Seedless plants BIO 102 General Biology Lecture Outline General characteristics Have vascular tissue but lack seeds Examples Ferns Whisk ferns Club mosses Horsetails E. Seed-bearing plants General characteristics Have vascular tissue and seeds Divisions based on whether seeds are “covered” or not F. Gymnosperms General characteristics Vascular plants with “naked” seeds = i.e., no fruit Examples Conifers Gingkos Cycads Gnetophytes Gymnosperm life cycle G. Angiosperms General characteristics Vascular plants with “covered” seeds = i.e., seeds within fruits Fruits are derived from flowers Angiosperm = flowering plant Divisions are based on development and plant morphology (i.e., structures) Angiosperm life cycle H.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Mechanism of Growth Response in Treeline Species Minjiang Fir to Elevated CO2 and Temperature
    Silva Fennica 45(2) research articles SILVA FENNICA www.metla.fi/silvafennica · ISSN 0037-5330 The Finnish Society of Forest Science · The Finnish Forest Research Institute Morphological Mechanism of Growth Response in Treeline Species Minjiang Fir to Elevated CO2 and Temperature Ying Hou, Jintao Qu, Zukui Luo, Chao Zhang and Kaiyun Wang Hou, Y., Qu, J., Luo, Z., Zhang, C. & Wang, K. 2011. Morphological mechanism of growth response in treeline species Minjiang fir to elevated CO2 and temperature. Silva Fennica 45(2): 181–195. To test whether and how morphological traits are linked with growth responses of plants to temperature and CO2 is important for understanding the mechanism underlying how plant growth will respond to global warming. In this study, using closed-top chambers to mimic future elevated CO2 and temperature, the growth response, morphological traits of Minjiang fir (Abies faxoniana Rehd.et Wils.) and the relationship of the two were investigated after two years of exposure to the single and combined elevation of CO2 and temperature. The results showed that biomass of Minjiang fir was 21%, 31%, and 35% greater than the control in elevated CO2, elevated temperature and the combination of elevated CO2 and temperature treatments, respectively. Elevated CO2 and temperature significantly affected the morphology of Minjiang fir, and a few morphological traits were highly correlated with growth responses. Larger branch angles at the upper layer, crown volume, and relative crown length contributed to positive growth responses to elevated CO2, while decreased specific leaf area (SLA) con- stricted any further growth response. Leaf morphological traits were more closely correlated with the response ratio than crown did in the elevated temperature, while in the combination of elevated CO2 and temperature, crown was more correlated with the response ratio than the leaf morphological traits.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTENSION EC1257 Garden Terms: Reproductive Plant Morphology — Black/PMS 186 Seeds, Flowers, and Fruitsextension
    4 color EXTENSION EC1257 Garden Terms: Reproductive Plant Morphology — Black/PMS 186 Seeds, Flowers, and FruitsEXTENSION Anne Streich, Horticulture Educator Seeds Seed Formation Seeds are a plant reproductive structure, containing a Pollination is the transfer of pollen from an anther to a fertilized embryo in an arrestedBlack state of development, stigma. This may occur by wind or by pollinators. surrounded by a hard outer covering. They vary greatly Cross pollinated plants are fertilized with pollen in color, shape, size, and texture (Figure 1). Seeds are EXTENSION from other plants. dispersed by a variety of methods including animals, wind, and natural characteristics (puffball of dandelion, Self-pollinated plants are fertilized with pollen wings of maples, etc.). from their own fl owers. Fertilization is the union of the (male) sperm nucleus from the pollen grain and the (female) egg nucleus found in the ovary. If fertilization is successful, the ovule will develop into a seed and the ovary will develop into a fruit. Seed Characteristics Seed coats are the hard outer covering of seeds. They protect seed from diseases, insects and unfavorable environmental conditions. Water must be allowed through the seed coat for germination to occur. Endosperm is a food storage tissue found in seeds. It can be made up of proteins, carbohydrates, or fats. Embryos are immature plants in an arrested state of development. They will begin growth when Figure 1. A seed is a small embryonic plant enclosed in a environmental conditions are favorable. covering called the seed coat. Seeds vary in color, shape, size, and texture. Germination is the process in which seeds begin to grow.
    [Show full text]
  • Cristina Salmeri Plant Morphology
    Article Fl. Medit. 29: 163-180 https://doi.org/10.7320/FlMedit29.163 Version of Record published online on 23 September 2019 Cristina Salmeri Plant morphology: outdated or advanced discipline in modern plant sciences?* Abstract Salmeri, C.: Plant morphology: outdated or advanced discipline in modern plant sciences? — Fl. Medit. 29: 163-180. 2019. — ISSN: 1120-4052 printed, 2240-4538 online. In the last decades, with the increase of molecular studies, the study of plant forms has gone through a steady decline in interest, and researches on this topic are often neglected and under- estimated. Notwithstanding, comparative morphology as integrative discipline still assumes a pivotal role in modern sciences, remaining fundamentally relevant to nearly all fields of plant biology, such as systematics, evolutionary biology, ecology, physiology, genetics, molecular biology, not to mention also agriculture, bioengineering, and forensic botany. Contrary to com- mon belief, plant morphology is not a conservative finished science, but, like other sciences, it is open to constant innovations involving both concepts and methods. This contribution aims to promote a reflective discourse on the role of plant morphology in modern sciences and provides some examples of significant supports from plant morphology to different botanical issues. Key words: Systematics, plant micromorphology, seed coat sculpturing, leaf anatomy, ecomor- phology, climate adaptation. Introduction Despite the increasing societal awareness and sensitivity about the knowledge of bio- logical diversity and ecosystem functioning as pivotal matters for nature conservation on which human health and well-being fundamentally depend, studies in morphology-based classical taxonomy have increasingly become marginalized and considered less significant than other scientific methods in plant biology.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Label Plant Structures with Doubtful Or Mixed Identities? Zootaxa
    Plant structure ontology: How should we label plant structures with doubtful or mixed identities?* By: BRUCE K. KIRCHOFF†, EVELIN PFEIFER‡, and ROLF RUTISHAUSER§ Kirchoff, B. K., E. Pfeifer, and R. Rutishauser. (Dec. 2008) Plant Structure Ontology: How to label plant structures with doubtful or mixed identities? Zootaxa. 1950, 103-122. Made available courtesy of ELSEVIER: http://www.elsevier.com/ ***Note: Figures may be missing from this format of the document Abstract: This paper discusses problems with labelling plant structures in the context of attempts to create a unified Plant Structure Ontology. Special attention is given to structures with mixed, or doubtful identities that are difficult or even impossible to label with a single term. In various vascular plants (and some groups of animals) the structural categories for the description of forms are less distinct than is often supposed. Thus, there are morphological misfits that do not fit exactly into one or the other category and to which it is difficult, or even impossible, to apply a categorical name. After presenting three case studies of intermediate organs and organs whose identity is in doubt, we review five approaches to categorizing plant organs, and evaluate the potential of each to serve as a general reference system for gene annotations. The five approaches are (1) standardized vocabularies, (2) labels based on developmental genetics, (3) continuum morphology, (4) process morphology, (5) character cladograms. While all of these approaches have important domains of applicability, we conclude that process morphology is the one most suited to gene annotation. Article: INTRODUCTION For practical investigation of morphology and phylogeny reconstruction, most botanists still work with metaphors or concepts that view morphological characters as “frozen in time,” as static “slices” of a continuous process.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Morphology-I (Root, Stem and Leaf) 12
    12 Plant Morphology-I (Root, Stem and Leaf) The flowering plants are dominant plants on the earth with 3 lac species. They exhibit great variety as shown below : · Variety by size : The smallest gymnospermic plant is Zamia pygmaea with 2030 cm length while greatest gymnospermic plant is Sequoia sempervirens with 150 meter height. The smallest aquatic angiospermic plant is Lemna which is less than 1 cm and Wolffia globosa is about 25 mm in size and the tallest angiospermic plant is Eucalyptus sp. with 90100 meter length. · Variety by forms : Some plants are of Herb, Shrub or tree type, while some are of climber type. · Variety by life-span : Some plants are Annual, while some are Biannual or perennials. e.g., Bodhigaya (Pipal) tree is 2500 years old. · Variety by Habitat (Life-style) : Some plants are terrestrial, aquatic, xerophytic, epiphytic, parasitic, Halophytic in reference to their Habitat. Normally, phanerogames have two parts : (1) Above ground axis (shoot system) and (2) Underground axis (Root System). Root system develops from Radicle and shoot system develops from plumule. (1) Which option is correct for root which is developed from Radicle ? (A) Assimilatory root of Tinospora (B) Prop root of Banyan tree (C) Food storage root of carrot (D) Haustoria of cuscuta (2) Which option is correct for classification of plants according to their forms ? (i) Vinca (ii) Banyan (iii) Ocimum (iv) Eucalyptus (v) Papaya (vi) Bittergourd (vii) Pea Herb Shrub Tree Climber (A) (i), (iii) (vi), (v), (iv) (ii) (vii) (B) (iii), (vi) (iv), (v) (ii) (vii), (i) (C) (v), (vi) (i), (ii) (ii), (iv) (vii) (D) (i), (iii), (vii) (v) (ii), (iv) (vi) (3) Which option is correct for given Assertions ? x : Bodhigaya tree (pipal) is 25,000 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Morphological Characteristics As a Tool in Monitoring Response to Silvicultural Activities INTRODUCTION CHANGES in MORPHOL
    Plant Morphological Characteristics as a Tool in Monitoring Response to Silvicultural Activities David S. Buckleyl, John C. Zasadal, John C. Tappeiner 112, and Douglas M. Stones Abstract. --Monitoring environmental change through may be threatened, endangered, or produce special forest documentation of species composition becomes problematic products. This method, however, has several limitations. when compositional changes take several years to occur or Merely documenting changes in species composition does simply do not occur following silvicultural treatment. not identiv the underlying factors responsible for the loss or Morphological characteristics (e.g., leaf area, node density, gain of plant species on a site. Without this knowledge, it is bud number) change in many plant species in response to difficult to fine-tune silvicultural practices in order to prevent factors such as light availability, soil compaction, and organic the loss of certain species or encourage colonization by matter removal. As a monitoring tool, morphological others. A second limitation is that compositional changes characteristics: 1) detect plant responses soon after may occur very slowly following treatment. Thus, it may be treatment, 2) reveal underlying factors that produce changes necessary to wait several years to assess the effect of a in plant condition and composition, 3) allow prediction of given treatment. Populations of certain species may persist short-term growth response and long-term forest for long periods, despite the fact that they are declining and development, and 4) may aid in communicating effects of will eventually be replaced by better-adapted species. Finally, silvicultural treatments. species composition may not change at all following treatment. Due to the innate plasticity in many plant species, individual species may respond by changing their growth INTRODUCTION form and morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • Tree Anatomy I
    ADVANCED TREE BIOLOGY: TREE ANATOMY I by Dr. Kim D. Coder, Professor of Tree Biology & Health Care W arnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia Abstract: Professional tree health care providers and tree managers should always use the proper terms and definitions for tree components, parts, and growth patterns. Understanding proper scientific names for anatomical components is critical in identifying and describing tree parts and problems. This workshop is an advanced technical look at tree anatomy and morphology at the macroscopic levels (<15X) in above ground structures. Concentration will be on identifying and naming common tree growth forms, and visible tree tissues and their organization. Coverage includes twig, branch, stem, and periderm anatomy, along with identifying features visible with the naked eye or under low magnification. Can you tell one part from another? A certificate of completion will be provided. Workshop Outline: 1. INTRODUCTION – DEFINING TREES 2. GENERAL CROWN FORM 3. MERISTEMS 4. BUDS AND GROWING POINTS 4A. BUD DEFINITIONS 4B. BUD CONTENTS 4C. GROWING POINT FORMS 5. TWIGS 5A. TWIG FORM 5B. TWIG CICATRICES 6. TWIG / BRANCH / STEM 7. STEM 7A. STEM CROSS-SECTION 7B. STEM FORM 7C. SHOOT GROWTH PATTERNS Page 1 of 32 7D. SECONDARY XYLEM & PHLOEM 9D1. GYMNOSPERMS 9D2. ANGIOSPERMS 7E. XYLEM INCREMENT TYPES 7F. SAPWOOD / HEARTWOOD 7G. BRANCH ATTACHMENT 7H. PRUNING ANATOMY 8. PERIDERM 8A. PERIDERM DEFINITIONS 8B. PERIDERM FORM 9. SELECTED LITERATURE WORKSHOP MANUAL GUIDE INTRODUCTION morphology = study of external shape, form, and structure seed bearing plants = angiosperms & gymnosperms (both part of Spermatophytes) flowering plants = angiosperms angiosperms = flowering plants which have seeds enclosed in carpels (fruit) eudicots = 75% of angiosperms – modern dicots = 3% of angiosperms – ancient (Magnoliosida) monocots = 22% of angiosperms gymnosperms = seed plants with ovules not in an ovary but exposed to the environment (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Morphology Booklet
    ESSENTIAL PLANT BIOLOGY Plant Morphology This booklet looks at the external morphological features of dicot and monocot plants and how they relate to the plant’s life cycle type. Page Introduction 2 Roots 3 Stems 6 Leaves 13 Flowers 18 Fruit 21 Seeds 22 Monocotyledons & Dicotyledons 24 Plant Life Cycles and Morphology 25 LEARNING OUTCOMES On completing this session learners will be able to: Identify the external features of a range of plants. Describe a range of modifications in plant structure and relate these to their function. Describe the structure and function of flowers, fruit and seed. Describe the differences between monocotyledon and dicotyledon plant structure. Relate plant morphology and structures to management practices. Describe a number of plant life cycles and relate these to plant morphology. Plant Morphology: © Myerscough College 2013 1 Plant Morphology Introduction This topic introduces the names and functions of the different external structures of plants. It relates closely to the topic of Plant Anatomy which is concerned with the internal structure of plants. Throughout the topic there will be references to the two classes of flowering plants or Angiosperms, monocotyledons (monocots) and dicotyledons (dicots) and just occasionally to the non-flowering, cone bearing Gymnosperms such as pines and spruce. The differences between the two classes of flowering plants are summarised towards the end of this morphology section but basically the split between the two groups, monocots and dicots, based on the number of cotyledons present in the seed. Monocots have one cotyledon and dicots have two. Plants living on land obtain water and minerals from the soil.
    [Show full text]