Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If we assume a constant thickness of the vascular cambium, branches must conserve surface area.

Not necessarily. Transport speed could be different depending on the diameter of the branches

Also, I would think a model that has a constant flow at each distance from the roots or the leaves is incorrect.

A more realistic model has water being transported up and mostly evaporating in the leaves and barely contributing to tree mass, carbon (in some form) being transported down from the leaves and gradually being accumulated, and small amounts of minerals being transported up from the roots and gradually being accumulated.

That model has a constant water flow throughout the tree, but a gradient in downward flow. I wouldn’t know which is dominant.

_if_ most of the transport volume is carbon being transported down to branches and roots and being accumulated, more volume would go out of the leaves than arrives at ground level.

I wouldn’t know whether that’s true, though. Most of a tree’s mass comes out of CO2 in the air, but because water evaporates out of the tree, there still may be more stuff going up than going down.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: