3 ms·

It's really not that complicated. all vascular plants have basically the same node -- axially meristem -- internode -- node pattern to growth. All plants are

It's really not that complicated. all vascular plants have basically the same node -- axially meristem -- internode -- node pattern to growth. All plants are actually fractals but it's not a long the leaf dimension, it's along the stem axis. It's also why it's so easy to effectively take cuttings and get a an 'fully mature' plant from them (eventually). Every node--etc.. section is the same pattern as every other. It's largely due to the exogenous origin of branching.

robotresearcher 3y ago
> All plants are actually fractals but it's not a long the leaf dimension, it's along the stem axis. > Every node--etc.. section is the same pattern as every other. Common sense says this isn't true. Some sections grow leaves and flowers rather than smaller branches, others do not.
- ksaj 3y ago
  It boils down to an if statement. Once you've reached a certain number of iterations, or the initial branching meets certain conditions, another rule set applies. But those rules are still not all that different - follow the leaf veins, and all their branching throughout. The same applies to the roots.
  - robotresearcher 3y ago
    The article denies that, at least for the species and structures it discusses. It specifically says it's a non iterative process. That's the point the paper is trying to make. I'm not sure if that's the structures you are talking about, but a few comments up declared 'All plants are actually fractals'. The paper says no, at least in the aspects they are talking about, which are structures that appear fractal-like but are not. They also say it's misleading to think of them as fractals, as the processes are importantly different.
Clamchop 3y ago
Not all plants have the growth patterns you describe. Many monocots and gymnosperms (cycads) either don't branch, or do so irregularly (they'll look "messy", think Joshua trees or branching palms), and cuttings aren't a viable means of propagation. Whatever the definition of a fractal (seems contentious), these plants aren't clearing the bar.

robotresearcher 3y ago

> All plants are actually fractals but it's not a long the leaf dimension, it's along the stem axis. > Every node--etc.. section is the same pattern as every other. Common sense says this isn't true. Some sections grow leaves and flowers rather than smaller branches, others do not.

ksaj 3y ago
It boils down to an if statement. Once you've reached a certain number of iterations, or the initial branching meets certain conditions, another rule set applies. But those rules are still not all that different - follow the leaf veins, and all their branching throughout. The same applies to the roots.
- robotresearcher 3y ago
  The article denies that, at least for the species and structures it discusses. It specifically says it's a non iterative process. That's the point the paper is trying to make. I'm not sure if that's the structures you are talking about, but a few comments up declared 'All plants are actually fractals'. The paper says no, at least in the aspects they are talking about, which are structures that appear fractal-like but are not. They also say it's misleading to think of them as fractals, as the processes are importantly different.

Clamchop 3y ago

Not all plants have the growth patterns you describe. Many monocots and gymnosperms (cycads) either don't branch, or do so irregularly (they'll look "messy", think Joshua trees or branching palms), and cuttings aren't a viable means of propagation. Whatever the definition of a fractal (seems contentious), these plants aren't clearing the bar.