I'm looking for a few good sources of information on dendrochronology, particularly something along the lines of a textbook or reference.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Russ,

My 30 year old lecture notes indicate that the original techniques were developed at the University of Arizona, Tuscon. They were utilized in archeaology and I think were developed by that department not a forestry or botany department. You might search there. Search Amazon on archaeology. If my old notes reveal anyting I'll copy and send.

Molly Beck wrote a case capsule in AC some time ago and may have found some sources.

Wayne Cahilly told me about the Lamont Geophysical Observatory doing some coring in the NYBG native forest as part of a large scale historic climate pattern study using dendrochronology. He might have a contact.
Scott

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Russ,

Amazon search on 'dendrochronology' yields 17 titles.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Iv'e wondered about this for a while. I was watching a documentary and this guy's taking a core from a 600+ y/o 4in cal bristlecone. His justification is that trees compartmentalize. seems like a big risk to me.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Try a web search on the key word ... there are sveral fascinatinmg sites out there.

Julian

Reply to post by John, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Yeah, when the wood is that old, can it still react and compartmentalize? Where's the research on that?

But coring still beats cutting it down, like that one guy did a few years back.

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

What search engine do you use? My searches usually turned up a bunch of stuff on archaeology, with little pertinent to trees.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 26, 1998 at 18:41:18:

Russ,

As in my earlier post, most of these techniques were developed by archeologists for dating

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 26, 1998 at 18:41:18:

Russ,

Something corrupted (31) so reposting. You'll find a lot of archaeology sources because they developed the technique. You'll also find natural resource applications. At least one NR text on Amazon. I did a Profusion search which returned from WebCrawler, Alta Vista and Snap. Lots of bibliographies. Lots from Univeristy of Arizona. Some from MSU. Others from UK.

Scott

Reply to post by John, on December 21, 1998 at 22:51:00:

Many forest pathologist do not believe that conifers do compartmentalize. It is an angiosperm thing. Myself, I believe that conifers limit the spread of weak pathogens. My experience tells me that they do not compartmentalize the way that the hardwoods do. That does not necessarily mean that it is dangerous to penetrate a bristlecone pine. Pines have a defense system that include allelochemicals, evolved to fight off pathogens before the organism gets a colony going inside the tree.

Reply to post by Scott, on December 28, 1998 at 20:01:23:

I ordered a few books from amazon, so will see what they have to say. I'll let you know if they are of any help, and maybe link them in The Bookshop.

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on December 25, 1998 at 20:58:14:

Peter et al,

Help me out here a little guys, I'm not a pathologist / mycologist.

1) Do we mostly talk about compartmentalization in terms of isolating decay? And if so are the decay causing organisms pathogens or saprophytes or both? Is the distinction meaningful?

2) Are the Bristlecone pines found in very dry, if not desert, climates? Are decay causing organisms naturally inhibited in such an environment irrespective of compartmentalization?

Scott

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 28, 1998 at 20:21:53:

Russ:

Sorry for the delayed response; searching for information about forests in Chile is preoccupying me. I was looking for information about the Alerce forests in Chile and came across the following site which has since eaten up inumerable hours of surfing time.

Cheers and happy new year to all

Julian Dunster
Bowen Island, BC
(where the snow has almost all gone thank goodness!)

http://tree.ltrr.arizona.edu/~grissino/links.htm

Reply to post by Scott, on December 29, 1998 at 22:55:50:

We talk about compartmentalization in terms of isolating decay caused by pathogens only, because saprophytes only decay dead organic material, which should be non-reactive. Dead wood can resist decay due to chemicals in said wood, and the molecular structure of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.

Bristlecone pines and other plant species living in very dry, desert, climates have evolved to the site. Not surprisingly, pests usually co-evolve. Without pests that co-evolve, the plant species would be all over the place.
Pests (pathogens and insects & etc.) magnify the ill effects of the environment on a plant
by exploiting the weaknesses that the interaction between the plant and the environment produce in the plant.
By doing so, pests limit the range of a species. At the same time, the pests enhance a specie's niche by eliminating other species that are not as adapted to that niche.
That is why an exotic pest (or plant) is such a problem- either there is no pest to help the environment limit its habitat, or there is a pest that limits a native plant that was adapted previously.
I think you are getting at the fact that fungi need moisture to germinate, and to sporulate. The Bristlecone pines that are at the extremes of their range, and are (hopefully) safe from most parasites.
Not a bad strategy, living at the extremes, if a species is tough enough. Something always gets them, but if there are no enemies up there, why would they need to compartmentalize anyway, right?
Unfortunately, the exotic white pine blister rust is a big killer of Bristlecone pines. There is also a dwarf mistletoe. We suspect that the Bristlecone pines will be fine, since these pests do best in more compact populations (epidemiology principles.)

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on December 30, 1998 at 13:10:06:

Thanks Peter.

1) Sounds like both the survival strategy (sic, an anthropocentric term that does not really describe the evolutionary process) and population limitation in the extreme climates are related to the extreme conditions. They went and hid where biotic pathogens have a tougher time than they do, are reproductively limited by the same conditions, which in turn provides limited host material for adaptive pathogens. The climate extreme has in some fashion played the dynamic role of a pest.

2) "Something always gets them, but if there are no enemies up there, why would they need to compartmentalize anyway, right?" Did this thread suggest that the conifers do not compartmentalize?

3) Whether we talking about compartmentalizers or not, are there two types of plant threatening processes going on? A) A "disease" causing pathogen, like white pine blister rust that might exploit an infection court like a surface wound to disprupt plant growth processes and kill growing tissue and B)decay causing pathogens that might exploit a deep wound into fully formed and non growing wood, like an increment bore hole, to destroy structural tissue.

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 30, 1998 at 01:13:19:

Russ:

here is another excellent site with links all over the place to dendrochronology pages.

http://forestry.miningco.com/

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 30, 1998 at 01:13:19:

Thanks for the site suggestions, Basil. After some more searching, I had found the Arizona site, but not the other. Have also requested 2 books on the topic- hope they are useful. The trick is now to review all this information, and assimilate it into productive knowledge.

Russ

Reply to post by Scott, on December 31, 1998 at 02:15:33:

Scott, I agree that "survival strategy" is anthropocentric, non-evolutionary, probably teleological way to put it. But... how else would we say it? Maybe just "survival mechanism".
Yes, I suggest that conifers do not compartmentalize a stong pathogen.
And no tree ever compartmentalizes in its apoplastic tissues. Apoplastic meaning nonliving tissue. This might include large volumes of xylem, although this xylem might still transport water and solutes.
I find your observation very astute. I agree, some biotic disease agents (pathogens)kill growing tissue (symplast). Other biotic disease agents exploit apoplast, such as nongrowing wood, and destroy structural tissue. I would consider both to be pathogens, given the definition of "disease": a malfunctioning of host cells and tissues that results from continuous irritation by a pathogenic agent or environmental factor and leads to development of symptoms. (From Agrios, G.K., Plant Pathology Fourth Ed.)
Whether or not the tissues can compartmentalize, they can still use allelochemicals to prevent or limit infection.
We probably should be having this discussion at "Insects and Disease".