Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:15:55 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(snipped)


Leaf color has been studied. More important than soil moisture is the
combination of day length and air temperature. Deciduous trees in
temperate zones start to shut down leaf metabolism based on day length.
If the cool weather of fall arrives at a different stage of the
shutdown, then tissues in the leaf will die at different parts of the
cycle, leading to different colors.

Red colors come from Anthocyanins and Betaines in the leaf, which are
carried in vacuoles of the epithelial cells. Yellow colors are from
Xanthophylls, which are in the plastids of the pallisade cells. Those
plastids also have a lot of chlorophyll in them, which in deciduous
trees dies at a certain temperature. If the red pigments have been
removed from the epithelial cells by the time cool weather kills the
chlorophyll, then the leaves are yellow, if not, then you get red
leaves.

Soil moisture has some effect, as it influences the amount of sugars
that are in the leaf. The sugars don't actually react with anything to
make the colors, but they do affect the timing that the red pigments
are removed. In addition, if a tree never produces the red pigments,
you will never get red leaves.

This is simplified somewhat, you should be able to find some articles
on the web that go into more detail.

Sean

Okay, thanks, that explains why one year the amur maples were all yellow
and why this year they are mostly red.

I need to know something about trees and plants taking in water during
Autumn and Winter months.

I need an answer on whether plants and trees like a wet Autumn or prefer a
dry Autumn considering that they need to get water and sap out of their
systems in preparation for winter. And whether trees during winter take in
water and by how much? I guess they take in some water such as
strawberries.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


Okay, thanks, that explains why one year the amur maples were all
yellow and why this year they are mostly red.

I need to know something about trees and plants taking in water
during Autumn and Winter months.

I need an answer on whether plants and trees like a wet Autumn or
prefer a dry Autumn considering that they need to get water and
sap out of their systems in preparation for winter. And whether
trees during winter take in water and by how much? I guess they
take in some water such as strawberries.


In this case, it really depends on the plant. Plants are adapted to
live in the environment that they grow in. In areas that tend to
have wet autumns, the plants that grow there "like" wet autumns. In
places that get less water, the plants do better with less, it is
all part of how the plants prepare for their dormancy.

As far as taking in water during winter, if a plant doesn't have any
leaves, it generally doesn't take in much at all, demand goes way
down, though a tiny bit may be taken up when the soil is not frozen.
Some moisture may be needed in the soil to prevent the roots from
drying out.

Sean

Sat, 09 Oct 2004 03:10:57 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


In this case, it really depends on the plant. Plants are adapted to
live in the environment that they grow in. In areas that tend to
have wet autumns, the plants that grow there "like" wet autumns. In
places that get less water, the plants do better with less, it is
all part of how the plants prepare for their dormancy.

As far as taking in water during winter, if a plant doesn't have any
leaves, it generally doesn't take in much at all, demand goes way
down, though a tiny bit may be taken up when the soil is not frozen.
Some moisture may be needed in the soil to prevent the roots from
drying out.

Sean

Yes I understand plants and trees are adapted to their environment.

But I need to know some genetic requirements. For in animals when they
hibernate over winter such as bears or opossum or woodchuck that they
seem to never need water.

So how much water does a bear need compared to say how much water a
strawberry or elm tree or maple tree need during winter.

I guess a bigger question is how much water does a animal of comparable
size to a plant need during various times of the year even summer.

My theory that animals are the inverse of plants in a complimentary
quantum dualism where the bone system of animals is calcium versus
carbon to plants and where plants intake and utilize carbon-dioxide
whereas animals oxygen. And many other complimentary inverses.

But perhaps water intake is a variable that I have not considered fully.
Perhaps animals to plants need and utilize the same amount of water per
year given a comparable body size.

So let us look at say a ground squirrel which has about the same surface
area as a strawberry plant. Does the ground squirrel during summer
require a water intake that is about equal to the requirements of that
strawberry plant? And during winter is that requirement equal in both in
that they both hibernate and need no water during those winter months?


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:



Yes I understand plants and trees are adapted to their
environment.

But I need to know some genetic requirements. For in animals when
they hibernate over winter such as bears or opossum or woodchuck
that they seem to never need water.

So how much water does a bear need compared to say how much water
a strawberry or elm tree or maple tree need during winter.


Plants can get a very small amount of water from the soil during the
winter, hibernating animals metabolise the stored fat into water.


I guess a bigger question is how much water does a animal of
comparable size to a plant need during various times of the year
even summer.

Plants and animals are so very different in the means they aquire
water, the amount they actually need, and the reasons they need to
get quantities above the basic cellular metabolical requirements.
Because of this, the answer to your question is elusive.


My theory that animals are the inverse of plants in a
complimentary quantum dualism where the bone system of animals is
calcium versus carbon to plants and where plants intake and
utilize carbon-dioxide whereas animals oxygen. And many other
complimentary inverses.

You are a true natural philosopher. If there were no complements,
some things would start to pile up. Don't forget the utility of
microorganisms in nature.



But perhaps water intake is a variable that I have not considered
fully. Perhaps animals to plants need and utilize the same amount
of water per year given a comparable body size.

So let us look at say a ground squirrel which has about the same
surface area as a strawberry plant. Does the ground squirrel
during summer require a water intake that is about equal to the
requirements of that strawberry plant? And during winter is that
requirement equal in both in that they both hibernate and need no
water during those winter months?



A cursory examination makes that appear to be so, but... During the
winter the needs of both do go down, for the similar reason that
they are dormant. However, a fox continues to need the same amount
of water during the winter as summer, while an evergreen plant of
the same size does not.

Sean

Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:57:35 GMT Sean Houtman wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


Yes I understand plants and trees are adapted to their
environment.

But I need to know some genetic requirements. For in animals when
they hibernate over winter such as bears or opossum or woodchuck
that they seem to never need water.

So how much water does a bear need compared to say how much water
a strawberry or elm tree or maple tree need during winter.

Plants can get a very small amount of water from the soil during the
winter, hibernating animals metabolise the stored fat into water.


I guess a bigger question is how much water does a animal of
comparable size to a plant need during various times of the year
even summer.

Plants and animals are so very different in the means they aquire
water, the amount they actually need, and the reasons they need to
get quantities above the basic cellular metabolical requirements.
Because of this, the answer to your question is elusive.


My theory that animals are the inverse of plants in a
complimentary quantum dualism where the bone system of animals is
calcium versus carbon to plants and where plants intake and
utilize carbon-dioxide whereas animals oxygen. And many other
complimentary inverses.

You are a true natural philosopher. If there were no complements,
some things would start to pile up. Don't forget the utility of
microorganisms in nature.


But perhaps water intake is a variable that I have not considered
fully. Perhaps animals to plants need and utilize the same amount
of water per year given a comparable body size.

So let us look at say a ground squirrel which has about the same
surface area as a strawberry plant. Does the ground squirrel
during summer require a water intake that is about equal to the
requirements of that strawberry plant? And during winter is that
requirement equal in both in that they both hibernate and need no
water during those winter months?



A cursory examination makes that appear to be so, but... During the
winter the needs of both do go down, for the similar reason that
they are dormant. However, a fox continues to need the same amount
of water during the winter as summer, while an evergreen plant of
the same size does not.

Sean

Hello Sean. I need to find out some information about these creatures
that live underground and eat just rocks. Supposedly they are some of
the oldest life known on Earth and some have even conjectured that they
were the first life which evolved into all the other lifeforms.

But I believe the Quantum Physics of Life has both animal and plant
springing up simultaneously from cosmic rays that come to rest and
unfold as a living creature. Darwin Evolution would tend to say that one
form sprang up first such as the rock-eating creatures.

What I need to find out is whether these rock-eating creatures have
natural enemies. Animals depend on photosynthetic or rock-eaters. But
photosynthetic and rock-eaters according to Darwin do not need animal
creatures.

If I am correct about Quantum-Physics of life that the first lifeforms
on Earth were created by stopped-cosmic-rays that transformed into life
where one ray yields a plant microorganism and another ray produces a
animal microorganism, then those rock eaters would have had animal like
predators dating as far back as the first fossils ever found.

Sean, would you happen to know whether the biologists and
paleontologists that are finding the most primitive life forms whether
animal microorganisms are appearing in about equal numbers???

If Darwin was correct and I am wrong then there should be a period in
ancient fossils where animal like microorganisms no longer appear but
only plant like microorganisms that live either on the Sun energy or
rock-eating-energy.

So, Sean, I am curious at this moment to have that question somewhat
satisfied as to whether the fossil record of plant microorganisms and
animal microorganisms compliment one another all the way back to the
first forms of life on Earth or whether the animal like organisms stop
while the plant and rock eating microorganisms continue back in time.

The reason I bring up this water as per plant and animal is that if
first life on Earth began simultaneously with both plant and animal that
there should be something that is on equal amounts to both plant and
animal. And water would be such a molecule since it is essential to both
plant and animal. Viruses do not need water so they do not belong to a
plant or animal kingdom and they are merely "mobile genes or
transposons". Do rock eating microbes need water? I do not know. But I
wonder if there is a mathematical relationship between plants and
animals as to water requirements so that say a human life is equivalent
to a apple tree in the yearly average water amount needed.

So we divide the entire classification of Life into 2 categories of
Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom where their size ranges from
microscopic to macroscopic. Viruses are simple mobile genetics such as
transposons. And Animals differ from plants inversely by quantum
compliments and only in water does the plant kingdom and animal kingdom
match one another directly.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


Hello Sean. I need to find out some information about these
creatures that live underground and eat just rocks. Supposedly
they are some of the oldest life known on Earth and some have even
conjectured that they were the first life which evolved into all
the other lifeforms.

You are asking me to answer a lot of stuff, much of it is outside of
my ability, I am going to snip out stuff that I am not going to
approach. I could tell you that the underground creatures are called
"Worms", but that neglects your intelligence. I suppose that you are
actually discussing microorganisms that use non-organic chemicals
for energy.


What I need to find out is whether these rock-eating creatures
have natural enemies. Animals depend on photosynthetic or
rock-eaters. But photosynthetic and rock-eaters according to
Darwin do not need animal creatures.

Every organism on the planet is consumed either before or after
death by at least one other. Many plants require pollination by
animals, so in that way they also need animal creatures.



Sean, would you happen to know whether the biologists and
paleontologists that are finding the most primitive life forms
whether animal microorganisms are appearing in about equal
numbers???

It has been a rule for a long time that the consumed far outnumber
the consumers. This must be because your food must have time to grow
another meal in the time it takes you to digest your last one.


If Darwin was correct and I am wrong then there should be a period
in ancient fossils where animal like microorganisms no longer
appear but only plant like microorganisms that live either on the
Sun energy or rock-eating-energy.

Or a period when it is difficult to distinguish between the
plantlike and the animallike.



So we divide the entire classification of Life into 2 categories
of Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom where their size ranges from
microscopic to macroscopic. Viruses are simple mobile genetics
such as transposons. And Animals differ from plants inversely by
quantum compliments and only in water does the plant kingdom and
animal kingdom match one another directly.


2 categories isn't enough, even if we rename them as autotropic and
exotropic. A few things aren't as picky as that.


Sean

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1097801925.VZzA+6FIiTuqWzK5bpTWFw@teranews...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


....[trim]...

So we divide the entire classification of Life into 2 categories
of Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom where their size ranges from
microscopic to macroscopic. Viruses are simple mobile genetics
such as transposons. And Animals differ from plants inversely by
quantum compliments and only in water does the plant kingdom and
animal kingdom match one another directly.


2 categories isn't enough, even if we rename them as autotropic and
exotropic. A few things aren't as picky as that.


Greetings AP. Things have changed in the sphere of microbiology
since Lynn Margulis' work and theories such as endosymbiosis. You
could not do worse than reading her book entitled "The Five
Kingdoms", and the reasons for such division/classification.

Check this article as an introduction:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_lyn.html

"Evolution is the result of cooperative
and not competitive processes."




Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
This year I am getting brilliant red and crimson from my amur maples. A
few years ago I was gruntled in seeing them very much yellow.

I am suspecting the hypothesis of water during the time they turn color
is the factor as to whether they are yellow or red.

Anyone have evidence that it is the amount of water present that causes
red instead of yellow? This year was a wet year.

Liquid Amber responds to a wet, well nourished year by producing insipid
fall colours.
I suspect, as for Liquid Amber, water/nutrient stress plays a part in the
colours you are experiencing.
Annie in British Columbia

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Inyo wrote:


We have a Liquidambar (Sweetgum) planted in our front yard (the tree closely
resembles an Amur Maple, of course--and, yes, I know I know: Liquidamber is a
member of the Hamamelidaceae, not Aceraceae). The tree gets all kinds of water,
not only from the winter rainy season, but from our regular irrigation of the
lawn during summer, all the way up until the leaves fall completely off. The
tree seldom develops a stunning brilliant red Autumnal display that virtually
every other Liquidambar reveals around town during Fall. Our Liquidambar's
leaves remain, most years, a dull yellow, bordering on dingy brown. Depressing,
in the main. As I recollect, our Liquidambar does indeed seem to demonstrate at
least a modicum of reddish Autumnal glory when we've not watered nearly as much
during the summer, or early Fall. Could be merely coincidence, though; or,
perhaps the change is influenced by microclimates, or even differences in
ground chemistry caused by irrigation leaching ions from the
soil during our years of heavy watering.

Or it could be that the molecule responsible red color in Amur maple when combined
with water becomes red whereas a similar molecule in Sweetgum is the reverse color
of yellow. So that the molecule with alot of water is red for amur but yellow for
sweetgum.

No, the molecules are chemically unrelated. They are not in any way
identical or similar molecules that differ in hydration or anything of
the sort.

Yellow and orange pigments are various carotenes and xanthophylls.
These are pigments that are already present in leaf tissue when leaf
senescence (aging) begins. Destruction of chlorophyll causes these
pigments to become visible.

Red pigments are anthocyanins. Their biochemistry is well-known but
still the subject of much current study, because they are responsible
for red, purple, and blue color in many important ornamental and food
plants, and because there is medical and nutritional interest in their
antioxidant properties.

It is not fully understood what the adaptive value of leaf
anthocyanins is. Unlike the other fall color pigments, they are
synthesized rather than merely exposed. One hypothesis is that they
regulate light uptake or prevent oxidation damage, prolonging the life
of aging leaves under harsh fall conditions.

In trees that have variable fall color, environmental conditions do
influence anthocyanin production and thus influence fall color.
Anything that acts to send the tree into early dormancy, such as an
early hard frost, will impair anthocyanin production and thus impair
the red fall color display.

Water dependency makes sense on another dimension. When we cut a branch off of a
tree it never turns from green to red but always to yellow brown because the water
has been reduced.

Almost. It goes yellow-brown because it needs to remain healthy to
turn red. Cut it off, so that it won't live to produce anthocyanin,
and it won't turn red.

Now if this Liquidambar branch was broken does it tend to turn a reddish tint
before going yellow-brown? And why is it called "Liquid" and "ambar" in the first
place? Is it because it has something to do with red and water.

Proper coloring and abscission require that the leaf go through its
stages of aging while still attached to a tree that is supplying
nutrients. Break the branch off, and it loses its supply and just
dies.

The ornamental Liquidambar is Liquidambar styraciflua, sometimes
called Sweet Gum: it produces a viscous, amber-colored liquid that is
a usable substitute for styrax in medicinal and cosmetic applications.
Nothing at all to do with the leaf color.

As with other trees grown for fall color, there are varieties that
show one color reliably, and there are varieties that are variable.
Liquidambar is a common garden ornamental in mild-winter places,
because its varieties color reliably even in the absence of dormancy
signals such as chill. (I have Liquidambar trees that never see frost
but color reliably every November.)



On the other hand, the Chinese Pistache in our back yard receives prodigious
amounts of water during the summer and early Autumn--and that tree has no
problem turning brilliant red each and every year.

Finally, one last observation: most of the Liquidambars around our town are
pretty much neglected--the trees along the main streets and such. The only
water they apparently receive is from the customary winter and early Spring
rain cycles; and those Liquidambars, each and every year, virtually explode in
a brilliant display of vivid reds--gorgeous. They put our tree to shame.

Ornamental Liquidambars are bred to march to their own drummer, so to
speak. They color consistently with seemingly little dependence on
fall conditions. That's what makes them valuable in places that don't
have a sharp fall and winter. If only the big old ones didn't turn
into pavement-wreckers...

So, if the hypothesis that links reddish Autumnal leaf colors with the amount
of water delivered to a tree during the time the leaves begin to turn color
"holds water," bears credence, then our situation is directly opposite of
yours, at least with regard to the Liquidambar.


It maybe in that the chemistry of leaves and water are reverse of that between
amur-maple and sweetgum.

No, the chemistry of leaves is just about the same in both trees. What
you are overlooking is the operation (or lack thereof) of the
mechanisms of leaf aging. If the conditions are not conducive to
anthocyanin production *in that tree in that place*, you get no red or
reduced red color. Temperature is usually the most important
environmental condition: the more chill before killing frost, the
better the fall color. Early killing frost impairs fall color.
Adequate water during color formation improves fall color; drought or
flooding will more likely impair it.

--
Chris Green

mountain man wrote:

"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
news:1097801925.VZzA+6FIiTuqWzK5bpTWFw@teranews...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in
:


...[trim]...

So we divide the entire classification of Life into 2 categories
of Plant kingdom and Animal kingdom where their size ranges from
microscopic to macroscopic. Viruses are simple mobile genetics
such as transposons. And Animals differ from plants inversely by
quantum compliments and only in water does the plant kingdom and
animal kingdom match one another directly.


2 categories isn't enough, even if we rename them as autotropic and
exotropic. A few things aren't as picky as that.

Greetings AP. Things have changed in the sphere of microbiology
since Lynn Margulis' work and theories such as endosymbiosis. You
could not do worse than reading her book entitled "The Five
Kingdoms", and the reasons for such division/classification.

Another way to state this Quantum Duality between plant kingdom versus
animal kingdom is to say that the plant kingdom alone or the kingdom
which the rock-eaters belong to are insufficient of themselves to make
life take hold and become established on Earth except for a brief
instant of time. That one kingdom alone cannot sufficiently utilize the
Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements to make life permanently established
on Earth.

My theory of Quantum Duality of Plants to Animals would say that both
were created almost instantaneously and concurrently some 5 billion
years ago. Rock-eaters alone or photosynthetic type of bluegreen algae
cannot utilize enough of the Periodic Table to establish life on Earth.

So the divide between plants and animals whether they are one celled or
many celled is the divide that can utilize most of the elements of the
Periodic Chart.

My theory differs from Darwin Evolution in two fundamental ways (1)
kingdoms are quantum duals in order to utilize the Periodic Chart of
Elements and (2) both kingdoms were spontaneously created from a cosmic
ray or several cosmic rays that stopped and transformed their enormous
energy into plants and animals all within a close time span and about
the same instant in geological time and about the same place on Earth.

So as we find out more knowledge and facts on rock-eaters and plants
versus animals we should detect these INVERSES or Reverses where plants
are the inverse of animals as per elements of the periodic table.

Example: animals would not have oxygen in the air if not for plants, yet
plants would starve of nitrogen in the soil if not for animals.

So the key thing is to keep looking for chemical elements that one
kingdom provides another kingdom and vice versa.

So if we put ourselves in the shoes of God creating life on Earth and
given some parameters of allowance and restrictions we, as a God creator
would find it better to create not just one kingdom at the beginning
because those creatures would have so many gaps and holes of needs,
instead we would create 2 kingdoms simultaneously where 1/2 of the
chemicals can be taken care of by the Plant kingdom and the other 1/2
chemicals critical for the long term establishment of life taken care of
by the Animal kingdom. And this God would then send to Earth a cosmic
ray packed with so much energy of say 10^14 MeV that a few plants and
few animals were created all at once.

Darwin's view would be that rock-eaters happened to evolve and then a
billion or two billion years later these rock-eaters would change and
alter and evolve into at least 2 or more kingdoms. Kingdoms that
compliment one another.

So which is the more probable, my theory or Darwins'? I think my theory
is the more plausible because it has the aspect of what Feynman dwelled
much about-- least energy or path taken is least energy. Darwin's route
requires huge amounts of energy whereas my theory takes little energy.

As the years go by and we learn more about rock-eaters, if my theory is
correct we should also find that these primitive creatures are dependent
on at least another group of creatures of a different kingdom required
to live nearby.

Same goes for the blue-green algae primitive creatures of the early
oceans.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Christopher Green wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
Inyo wrote:


We have a Liquidambar (Sweetgum) planted in our front yard (the tree closely
resembles an Amur Maple, of course--and, yes, I know I know: Liquidamber is a
member of the Hamamelidaceae, not Aceraceae). The tree gets all kinds of water,
not only from the winter rainy season, but from our regular irrigation of the
lawn during summer, all the way up until the leaves fall completely off. The
tree seldom develops a stunning brilliant red Autumnal display that virtually
every other Liquidambar reveals around town during Fall. Our Liquidambar's
leaves remain, most years, a dull yellow, bordering on dingy brown. Depressing,
in the main. As I recollect, our Liquidambar does indeed seem to demonstrate at
least a modicum of reddish Autumnal glory when we've not watered nearly as much
during the summer, or early Fall. Could be merely coincidence, though; or,
perhaps the change is influenced by microclimates, or even differences in
ground chemistry caused by irrigation leaching ions from the
soil during our years of heavy watering.

Or it could be that the molecule responsible red color in Amur maple when combined
with water becomes red whereas a similar molecule in Sweetgum is the reverse color
of yellow. So that the molecule with alot of water is red for amur but yellow for
sweetgum.

No, the molecules are chemically unrelated. They are not in any way
identical or similar molecules that differ in hydration or anything of
the sort.

Yellow and orange pigments are various carotenes and xanthophylls.
These are pigments that are already present in leaf tissue when leaf
senescence (aging) begins. Destruction of chlorophyll causes these
pigments to become visible.

Red pigments are anthocyanins. Their biochemistry is well-known but
still the subject of much current study, because they are responsible
for red, purple, and blue color in many important ornamental and food
plants, and because there is medical and nutritional interest in their
antioxidant properties.

It is not fully understood what the adaptive value of leaf
anthocyanins is. Unlike the other fall color pigments, they are
synthesized rather than merely exposed. One hypothesis is that they
regulate light uptake or prevent oxidation damage, prolonging the life
of aging leaves under harsh fall conditions.

In trees that have variable fall color, environmental conditions do
influence anthocyanin production and thus influence fall color.
Anything that acts to send the tree into early dormancy, such as an
early hard frost, will impair anthocyanin production and thus impair
the red fall color display.

Water dependency makes sense on another dimension. When we cut a branch off of a
tree it never turns from green to red but always to yellow brown because the water
has been reduced.

Almost. It goes yellow-brown because it needs to remain healthy to
turn red. Cut it off, so that it won't live to produce anthocyanin,
and it won't turn red.

Now if this Liquidambar branch was broken does it tend to turn a reddish tint
before going yellow-brown? And why is it called "Liquid" and "ambar" in the first
place? Is it because it has something to do with red and water.

Proper coloring and abscission require that the leaf go through its
stages of aging while still attached to a tree that is supplying
nutrients. Break the branch off, and it loses its supply and just
dies.

The ornamental Liquidambar is Liquidambar styraciflua, sometimes
called Sweet Gum: it produces a viscous, amber-colored liquid that is
a usable substitute for styrax in medicinal and cosmetic applications.
Nothing at all to do with the leaf color.

As with other trees grown for fall color, there are varieties that
show one color reliably, and there are varieties that are variable.
Liquidambar is a common garden ornamental in mild-winter places,
because its varieties color reliably even in the absence of dormancy
signals such as chill. (I have Liquidambar trees that never see frost
but color reliably every November.)



On the other hand, the Chinese Pistache in our back yard receives prodigious
amounts of water during the summer and early Autumn--and that tree has no
problem turning brilliant red each and every year.

Finally, one last observation: most of the Liquidambars around our town are
pretty much neglected--the trees along the main streets and such. The only
water they apparently receive is from the customary winter and early Spring
rain cycles; and those Liquidambars, each and every year, virtually explode in
a brilliant display of vivid reds--gorgeous. They put our tree to shame.

Ornamental Liquidambars are bred to march to their own drummer, so to
speak. They color consistently with seemingly little dependence on
fall conditions. That's what makes them valuable in places that don't
have a sharp fall and winter. If only the big old ones didn't turn
into pavement-wreckers...

So, if the hypothesis that links reddish Autumnal leaf colors with the amount
of water delivered to a tree during the time the leaves begin to turn color
"holds water," bears credence, then our situation is directly opposite of
yours, at least with regard to the Liquidambar.


It maybe in that the chemistry of leaves and water are reverse of that between
amur-maple and sweetgum.

No, the chemistry of leaves is just about the same in both trees. What
you are overlooking is the operation (or lack thereof) of the
mechanisms of leaf aging. If the conditions are not conducive to
anthocyanin production *in that tree in that place*, you get no red or
reduced red color. Temperature is usually the most important
environmental condition: the more chill before killing frost, the
better the fall color. Early killing frost impairs fall color.
Adequate water during color formation improves fall color; drought or
flooding will more likely impair it.

--
Chris Green

Sean explained it all very well some week ago by noting it was a concert action between the
plant turning off its metabolism because of "day length shortening" and upcoming cold weather.
So that if the cold weather comes too fast then we have yellow and brown without a chance to see
the reds and oranges and purples.

Sean's explanation answers the Amur Maples and also this year I have the first time seen my
amelanchiors or Juneberries turn red also.

Come to think of it. I suspect that the most ingrained biological behaviour in both plants and
animals is the length of day or the following of the Sun as it transits the sky every day of
every year. In that both plants and animals have that internal clock set into our genetics or
actual DNA of the A,C,T,G coding. Perhaps those so called "nonsense genes" are really the
internal clock.

On the news recently it was asked of science how birds mysteriously can fly their migrations so
well and I believe there is a connection between when plants start to shut down metabolism due
to their detection of the Sun timepiece and birds flying using the Sun as not only when to fly
but where to fly. We know that bees communicate using the Sun.

I can vouch for myself that if I want to wake up tomorrow at some awful time of 6:30 in the
morning that I can seemingly by magic wake up at that precise time so that the mind has some
internal clock.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Maybe you are thinking of complementarity along the line of Karl
Popper? You could be right that complementarity is a basic property of
quantum systems, although it is more likely to be only a property of
information processing systems (e.g. minds).