I was browsing through the Lee Valley gardening site (again) recently
and came across the Rooter Pot.
[http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?page=46938&category=2%2C47236&SID=&ccurrency=2]
This system is a much simplified and easier propagation system called
"air layering". Basically it allows you to make clones of existing
plants, shrubs and trees and allows you to obtain in 8 weeks a
duplicate that would take 3 years from seed or a cutting.
This sounds like a very cool thing to do, and has me wondering - what
trees would be the best candidates for cloning? Are you best off
wandering the woods until you find a "perfect" specimen?...or do
environmental factors play such a large role that merely eyeballing a
tree won't really tell you much? I figure if I'm (someday, maybe)
going to clone some trees, I might as well clone the *best*.
Anyone done this? Any good sources of info?
JP
*****************
Also, is it poor form to use "long" links, like above?
Or is it worse form to use a tinyurl that disguises the ultimate
destination?
Tim Douglass wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:34:11 -0400, Jay Pique <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I was browsing through the Lee Valley gardening site (again) recently
> >and came across the Rooter Pot.
> >[http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?page=46938&category=2%2C47236&SID=&ccurrency=2]
> >This system is a much simplified and easier propagation system called
> >"air layering". Basically it allows you to make clones of existing
> >plants, shrubs and trees and allows you to obtain in 8 weeks a
> >duplicate that would take 3 years from seed or a cutting.
> >
> >This sounds like a very cool thing to do, and has me wondering - what
> >trees would be the best candidates for cloning? Are you best off
> >wandering the woods until you find a "perfect" specimen?...or do
> >environmental factors play such a large role that merely eyeballing a
> >tree won't really tell you much? I figure if I'm (someday, maybe)
> >going to clone some trees, I might as well clone the *best*.
> >
> >Anyone done this? Any good sources of info?
>
> I would think that you would want to find the biggest and oldest tree
> you could, not necessarily looking for good appearance, since that
> tends to be a factor of environment. A tree that has survived a couple
> of hundred years of bugs, drought, fire and what have you is likely to
> have pretty sound genetics.
>
> >JP
> >*****************
> >Also, is it poor form to use "long" links, like above?
> >Or is it worse form to use a tinyurl that disguises the ultimate
> >destination?
>
> It is actually nice if you do both.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com
Not to be too critical but so far this thread is like a bunch of guys
stomping around in the woods with muzzle loaders wondering about the
latest designs in log houses. Hopefully they will finally find a road
and be amazed at saw wood and plywood construction of houses. People
have been "cloning" plants for a long time but the usual term is
"vegetative propagation" and it's pretty common. Tree farming has
also been around for a while and they pretty much know what they are
doing, at least with conifers in the west. (That's not a hit on any
other part of the country as tree farms are pretty extensive in the
south) You might just want to check some of the info available from
your state department of forestry or the U.S. Forest Service.
Did you try the search?
They tell me it's an insect. So much for doomsday selection scenarios.
http://fhpr8.srs.fs.fed.us/idotis/insects/wpnweev.html
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >If you think about it, there are few environmental factors that will
> >consistently cause 10 to 20 foot pine trees to send up split tops in
every
> >generation.
> >
> >It is my opinion that the split trunk trait is a genetic variation. The
> >logging process has gone on now for more than one generation of trees
(300+
> >years). I am forced to conclude that we have been slowly selecting our
> >forests for poorer quality timber.
>
Interesting header, "proposed a theory" Hardly. There isn't any non
critical part. "Too" is an adverb and "not too" means not to
intense. Glad you found it interesting, but no one said it was
boring, just fairly common knowledge, speaking as a botanist. By the
way, most horticulturist and botanists of all stripes are not employed
by tree farms.
Old Nick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:12:22 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> And the non-critical part is?
>
> I found it interesting and learnt some stuff. If tree cloning was so
> boring, then there would not be so many sites on the web about it,
> teaching people who do not work for tree farms.
>
> >Not to be too critical but so far this thread is like a bunch of guys
> >stomping around in the woods with muzzle loaders wondering about the
> >latest designs in log houses. Hopefully they will finally find a road
> >and be amazed at saw wood and plywood construction of houses. People
> >have been "cloning" plants for a long time but the usual term is
> >"vegetative propagation" and it's pretty common. Tree farming has
> >also been around for a while and they pretty much know what they are
> >doing, at least with conifers in the west. (That's not a hit on any
> >other part of the country as tree farms are pretty extensive in the
> >south) You might just want to check some of the info available from
> >your state department of forestry or the U.S. Forest Service.
>
> *****************************************************
> It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
> rammed down our throats.
Well, think about it.
The cells involved in plant budding and growth are the equivalent of stem
cells. Differentiation comes later, as does the plant equivalent of
programmed cell death - creating heartwood or bark.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > Jay Pique wrote:
> >>
> >> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
> >
> > The straightest.
> >
> > A "cloned" tree's cells are as biologically "old" as its parent. Clones
> > from an older tree will go into decline sooner.
>
> That can't be true for plants (at least not in its generality). There are
> many plants that are not fertile, and can only be propagated by taking
> cuttings (=cloning). Yet the "progeny" lives far longer than the original
> plant ever did or could. Sorry that I can't give an example, just go to
> any respectable nursery/tree grower.
Jay Pique wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Interesting header, "proposed a theory" Hardly. There isn't any non
> >critical part. "Too" is an adverb and "not too" means not to
> >intense. Glad you found it interesting, but no one said it was
> >boring, just fairly common knowledge, speaking as a botanist. By the
> >way, most horticulturist and botanists of all stripes are not employed
> >by tree farms.
>
> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
> Apparently you're the only fish in this otherwise unstocked pond!
>
> JP
>
Oh Thank you. Pick whatever you consider desirable traits for that
species-- straightness, fast growth, disease resistance, etc. I don't
think oldness is particularly desirable. Age is probably more a
result of chance than genetics. BTW, cutting old big trees and
leaving small trees isn't selecting for small trees, since little
acorns become mighty oaks. Maybe somebody forgot that.
Han wrote:
>
> Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Jay Pique wrote:
> >>
> >> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
> >
> > The straightest.
> >
> > A "cloned" tree's cells are as biologically "old" as its parent. Clones
> > from an older tree will go into decline sooner.
>
> That can't be true for plants (at least not in its generality). There are
> many plants that are not fertile, and can only be propagated by taking
> cuttings (=cloning). Yet the "progeny" lives far longer than the original
> plant ever did or could. Sorry that I can't give an example, just go to
> any respectable nursery/tree grower.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
Try the banana. Ever bite into one of those seeds?
>
> I would think that you would want to find the biggest and oldest tree
> you could, not necessarily looking for good appearance, since that
> tends to be a factor of environment. A tree that has survived a couple
> of hundred years of bugs, drought, fire and what have you is likely to
> have pretty sound genetics.
>
You have a good point about tree survival. However, I am not convinced the
method for selecting for survival is independent of timber quality.
In my locale, we have white pine for example. Some trees go straight up for
three logs before the main trunk branches. Others go one log or less before
splitting. In the old day's, it is easy to imagine that the split trunk
ones were left in favor of cutting the good straight ones. Today, the
majority of white pine I see have split trunks below the second log.
If you think about it, there are few environmental factors that will
consistently cause 10 to 20 foot pine trees to send up split tops in every
generation.
It is my opinion that the split trunk trait is a genetic variation. The
logging process has gone on now for more than one generation of trees (300+
years). I am forced to conclude that we have been slowly selecting our
forests for poorer quality timber.
Jay Pique wrote:
> I was browsing through the Lee Valley gardening site (again) recently
> and came across the Rooter Pot.
> [http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?page=46938&category=2%2C47236&SID=&ccurrency=2]
> This system is a much simplified and easier propagation system called
> "air layering". Basically it allows you to make clones of existing
> plants, shrubs and trees and allows you to obtain in 8 weeks a
> duplicate that would take 3 years from seed or a cutting.
>
> This sounds like a very cool thing to do, and has me wondering - what
> trees would be the best candidates for cloning? Are you best off
> wandering the woods until you find a "perfect" specimen?...or do
> environmental factors play such a large role that merely eyeballing a
> tree won't really tell you much? I figure if I'm (someday, maybe)
> going to clone some trees, I might as well clone the *best*.
>
> Anyone done this? Any good sources of info?
>
> JP
> *****************
> Also, is it poor form to use "long" links, like above?
> Or is it worse form to use a tinyurl that disguises the ultimate
> destination?
When I was a kid (teenager) we had an old Rubber plant, (you know the
big dark green leaves that people often use for house plants) that got
too big for the living room so it was relagated to the greenhouse.
Someone had taught me how to "air layer" and I must have "cloned" at
least 25 or thirty new plants from that old thing over a period of 3 or
4 years. They made great "house gifts" and the neighbors and friends
thought they were great! It also kept me from doing something silly on
Saturday afternoons. It's a good project for kids.
Big John
--
To reply, remove "invalid" from my address.
Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I was browsing through the Lee Valley gardening site (again) recently
> and came across the Rooter Pot ....
I've seen these pots before use, they look good and may simplify the
process. But old-fashioned air-layering isn't hard, you just need
lots and lots and lots of sphagnum.
> ... what trees would be the best candidates for cloning? ...
For value, "clone" ornamentals. Like Japanese Maples: if you
start in, say, May you'll have a great plant by fall.
Elms will air layer almost on their own, so fun to start with.
I've done juniper, crab apple, etc. Patience is your best tool -
wait until the new roots are vigorous.
Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Jay Pique wrote:
>>
>> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
>
> The straightest.
>
> A "cloned" tree's cells are as biologically "old" as its parent. Clones
> from an older tree will go into decline sooner.
That can't be true for plants (at least not in its generality). There are
many plants that are not fertile, and can only be propagated by taking
cuttings (=cloning). Yet the "progeny" lives far longer than the original
plant ever did or could. Sorry that I can't give an example, just go to
any respectable nursery/tree grower.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Jay Pique wrote:
>>
>> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
>
> The straightest.
>
> A "cloned" tree's cells are as biologically "old" as its parent. Clones
> from an older tree will go into decline sooner.
I don't think that's as true for plants as it is for animals.
Some plants will revert to juvenile type ofter air layering,
or after severe pruning. For example, some rhodies will not
flower from old wood, but if pruned almost to a stump, the
new growth will flower like crazy.
But what do I know, my oldest air layer is only about 10 years
old.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:15:19 +0800, Old Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:12:22 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
><[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
>I found it interesting and learnt some stuff. If tree cloning was so
>boring, then there would not be so many sites on the web about it,
>teaching people who do not work for tree farms.
>
>>Not to be too critical but so far this thread is like a bunch of guys
>>stomping around in the woods with muzzle loaders wondering about the
>>latest designs in log houses. Hopefully they will finally find a road
>>and be amazed at saw wood and plywood construction of houses
Heh - I've done that in South Carolina toting around a .270 before.
Damn near shot myself right out of the treestand. Scope-eye, the
whole deal. I remember thinking "damn, how'd that deer blood get all
the way up here?!"
>> People
>>have been "cloning" plants for a long time but the usual term is
>>"vegetative propagation" and it's pretty common. Tree farming has
>>also been around for a while and they pretty much know what they are
>>doing, at least with conifers in the west.
Yeah, it's pretty big in parts of South Carolina. I'm assuming they
do it with hardwoods as well. I know that "lyptus" is plantation
raised. I guess I've just never seen an oak farm or something like
that.
> (That's not a hit on any
>>other part of the country as tree farms are pretty extensive in the
>>south) You might just want to check some of the info available from
>>your state department of forestry or the U.S. Forest Service.
Will do.
JP
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:34:11 -0400, Jay Pique <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I was browsing through the Lee Valley gardening site (again) recently
>and came across the Rooter Pot.
>[http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?page=46938&category=2%2C47236&SID=&ccurrency=2]
>This system is a much simplified and easier propagation system called
>"air layering". Basically it allows you to make clones of existing
>plants, shrubs and trees and allows you to obtain in 8 weeks a
>duplicate that would take 3 years from seed or a cutting.
>
>This sounds like a very cool thing to do, and has me wondering - what
>trees would be the best candidates for cloning? Are you best off
>wandering the woods until you find a "perfect" specimen?...or do
>environmental factors play such a large role that merely eyeballing a
>tree won't really tell you much? I figure if I'm (someday, maybe)
>going to clone some trees, I might as well clone the *best*.
>
>Anyone done this? Any good sources of info?
I would think that you would want to find the biggest and oldest tree
you could, not necessarily looking for good appearance, since that
tends to be a factor of environment. A tree that has survived a couple
of hundred years of bugs, drought, fire and what have you is likely to
have pretty sound genetics.
>JP
>*****************
>Also, is it poor form to use "long" links, like above?
>Or is it worse form to use a tinyurl that disguises the ultimate
>destination?
It is actually nice if you do both.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Interesting header, "proposed a theory" Hardly. There isn't any non
>critical part. "Too" is an adverb and "not too" means not to
>intense. Glad you found it interesting, but no one said it was
>boring, just fairly common knowledge, speaking as a botanist. By the
>way, most horticulturist and botanists of all stripes are not employed
>by tree farms.
So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
Apparently you're the only fish in this otherwise unstocked pond!
JP
>Old Nick wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:12:22 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
>> <[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
>> ......and in reply I say!:
>>
>> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>>
>> And the non-critical part is?
>>
>> I found it interesting and learnt some stuff. If tree cloning was so
>> boring, then there would not be so many sites on the web about it,
>> teaching people who do not work for tree farms.
>>
>> >Not to be too critical but so far this thread is like a bunch of guys
>> >stomping around in the woods with muzzle loaders wondering about the
>> >latest designs in log houses. Hopefully they will finally find a road
>> >and be amazed at saw wood and plywood construction of houses. People
>> >have been "cloning" plants for a long time but the usual term is
>> >"vegetative propagation" and it's pretty common. Tree farming has
>> >also been around for a while and they pretty much know what they are
>> >doing, at least with conifers in the west. (That's not a hit on any
>> >other part of the country as tree farms are pretty extensive in the
>> >south) You might just want to check some of the info available from
>> >your state department of forestry or the U.S. Forest Service.
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
>> rammed down our throats.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 05:12:22 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
And the non-critical part is?
I found it interesting and learnt some stuff. If tree cloning was so
boring, then there would not be so many sites on the web about it,
teaching people who do not work for tree farms.
>Not to be too critical but so far this thread is like a bunch of guys
>stomping around in the woods with muzzle loaders wondering about the
>latest designs in log houses. Hopefully they will finally find a road
>and be amazed at saw wood and plywood construction of houses. People
>have been "cloning" plants for a long time but the usual term is
>"vegetative propagation" and it's pretty common. Tree farming has
>also been around for a while and they pretty much know what they are
>doing, at least with conifers in the west. (That's not a hit on any
>other part of the country as tree farms are pretty extensive in the
>south) You might just want to check some of the info available from
>your state department of forestry or the U.S. Forest Service.
*****************************************************
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 06:50:30 -0400, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Did you try the search?
>
>They tell me it's an insect. So much for doomsday selection scenarios.
>
>http://fhpr8.srs.fs.fed.us/idotis/insects/wpnweev.html
I didn't write what's below, but I think I agree with the theory.
JP
>"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >If you think about it, there are few environmental factors that will
>> >consistently cause 10 to 20 foot pine trees to send up split tops in
>every
>> >generation.
>> >
>> >It is my opinion that the split trunk trait is a genetic variation. The
>> >logging process has gone on now for more than one generation of trees
>(300+
>> >years). I am forced to conclude that we have been slowly selecting our
>> >forests for poorer quality timber.
>>
>
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:14:42 GMT, "sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In my locale, we have white pine for example. Some trees go straight up for
>three logs before the main trunk branches. Others go one log or less before
>splitting. In the old day's, it is easy to imagine that the split trunk
>ones were left in favor of cutting the good straight ones. Today, the
>majority of white pine I see have split trunks below the second log.
>
>If you think about it, there are few environmental factors that will
>consistently cause 10 to 20 foot pine trees to send up split tops in every
>generation.
>
>It is my opinion that the split trunk trait is a genetic variation. The
>logging process has gone on now for more than one generation of trees (300+
>years). I am forced to conclude that we have been slowly selecting our
>forests for poorer quality timber.
It's a possibility, but I wouldn't discount the fact that split tops
are a liability for longevity. Once we logged out all the old growth
that had survived (age naturally culling the split tops when they were
several hundred years younger), we started seeing the normal
propensity toward split tops. Let a stand of white pine grow for
300-500 years and let me know how many of the survivors have split
tops.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I would think that you would want to find the biggest and oldest tree
>> you could, not necessarily looking for good appearance, since that
>> tends to be a factor of environment. A tree that has survived a couple
>> of hundred years of bugs, drought, fire and what have you is likely to
>> have pretty sound genetics.
>>
>
>You have a good point about tree survival. However, I am not convinced the
>method for selecting for survival is independent of timber quality.
>
>In my locale, we have white pine for example. Some trees go straight up for
>three logs before the main trunk branches. Others go one log or less before
>splitting. In the old day's, it is easy to imagine that the split trunk
>ones were left in favor of cutting the good straight ones. Today, the
>majority of white pine I see have split trunks below the second log.
>
>If you think about it, there are few environmental factors that will
>consistently cause 10 to 20 foot pine trees to send up split tops in every
>generation.
>
>It is my opinion that the split trunk trait is a genetic variation. The
>logging process has gone on now for more than one generation of trees (300+
>years). I am forced to conclude that we have been slowly selecting our
>forests for poorer quality timber.
Ideally you would be able to get the best of both worlds - long
lasting as well as straight and large growth. I agree with your
theory about us culling the strong and leaving the weak though. I've
got to figure that tree farmers have studied this pretty
heavily...maybe I'll do a more detailed google search to see what I
can find.
JP
On 10 Aug 2004 13:43:56 GMT, Jean Darc <[email protected]> wrote:
>Father Haskell <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Jay Pique wrote:
>>>
>>> So what gives - should I pick the oldest tree, or the straightest?
>>
>> The straightest.
>>
>> A "cloned" tree's cells are as biologically "old" as its parent. Clones
>> from an older tree will go into decline sooner.
>
>
> I don't think that's as true for plants as it is for animals.
>Some plants will revert to juvenile type ofter air layering,
>or after severe pruning. For example, some rhodies will not
>flower from old wood, but if pruned almost to a stump, the
>new growth will flower like crazy.
>
> But what do I know, my oldest air layer is only about 10 years
>old.
<cue sound of confusion setting in>
JP
******************
BRING ME THE AXE!!!