Re:Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
by masklinn on Saturday January 19, 2013 @05:28PM
(#5085039)
> Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree) is 115m.
And the tallest reliably measured australian mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) was 112m, with disputed claims of individuals in the 130m range.
Re:Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
by Someone on Sunday January 20, 2013 @11:11AM
(#5087250)
Oops, apparently, one can get upvotes for giving a reference to the thread one is posting in. That first link should have been http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3643899.stm
Re:Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
by dspeyer on Saturday January 19, 2013 @07:57PM
(#5085507)
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.
Re:Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
by quotemstr on Saturday January 19, 2013 @09:07PM
(#5085668)
> Iirc albatrosses actually can't take off from the ground
Of course they can.
Re:Why trees can't grow taller than around 100 metres
by dspeyer on Tuesday January 22, 2013 @03:07PM
(#5099264)
Hmm...
Having now gone back and researched that a little better, it's only Waved Albatrosses I was thinking of and sources seem to disagree on whether they can take off from flat ground or not. They certainly prefer a cliff, and will make a long walk to get to one if necessary.
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 swans are outliers in the field of flying insects, respectively flying birds. That is why, in those circles, a standard joke is that bumblebees cannot fly, and swans can fly, but cannot take off from the ground.