One note about the trees of Massachusetts is that we chopped 80% of them down in the middle of the 1800's, and then for the next 80 or so years managed the regrowth depending on what type of tree was economically useful. The 1930's aren't that long ago from a tree's point of view I think, so we should suppose they are still in a fairly perturbed state (both in an emotional and a 'different from steady state distribution' sense, I guess).<p>Anyway, this doesn't really impact the article, which just uses the trees of MA as a framing device (narrative framing, that is, rather than for example house framing). I just thought it was a neat bit of trivia.
This is very interesting but what about the effects of mycorrhizal networks? I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that it has been demonstrated that these networks interact with the root system of trees to trade nutrients. Couldn’t that sort of thing level the playing field and alter the typical evolutionary processes we would expect?
Thanks for posting baradhiren07, Brian Hayes is a great find as so many theoretical ecologists are so model-oriented their works and thoughts are not applicable in forest, field or meadow.<p>"A model is the Marie Kondo version of nature—relentlessly decluttered and tidied up. Sometime important parts get tossed out ... Would we learn more if all those aspects of life in the woods had a place in the equations or the algorithms?"<p>I often design very large planting schemes and there are some genuinely useful approaches to randomness explored here.<p>And he's written 'Foolproof, and Other Mathematical Meditations' which I'll be tracking down asap.
Very interesting article. The discussion on the three models and their own deficiencies are quite interesting.<p>Niche assembly: every survival must have its own unique edge of advantage. I guess I'm most convinced by this. The counter-argument is "how can every specie has its unique edge?", but it could also be that we have not yet discovered it.<p>Natural drift: if everyone is equally fit and the system is large enough, then they can all survive (for a long time). But how come is everyone equally fit? The response is "since everyone survived (as we observe), everyone <i>must</i> be equally fit".. Honestly I'm not convinced by this logic.<p>Social distancing: trees practice social distancing to defend enemies, so diversity comes in. If tree-killing pests are all staying on one tree and kill its offsprings around it (but cannot kill the original tree since it's too large), then this theory seems plausible. I have no idea if this is true in the forests though..
This article reminded a friend of "Zero to One" by Peter Thiel. It was an interesting piece to keep in mind and to make some connections while going through the article.