no wonder the damned things keep coming back!
How much of the root needs to still be in the ground for it to be able to grow back?
New rosettes arise from buds at the crown and upper taproot so anything deeper than about 10cm is very unlikely to come back.
That drawing is from a very rare specimens too. Most dandelions do not grow that deep.
That's where glyphosate comes in handy.
The cancer was worth it to rid ourselves of a mildly offensive flower.
I reckon you could skip spraying it if you were going to eat it anyway.
Did you know that wheat in the US is sprayed with glyphosate right before harvest? It causes all the wheat to dry evenly, avoiding the need to cut down the wheat and windrow it for drying. This means extra weeks in the growing season to squeeze another crop in.
How would you squeeze another crop in?
By planting one after harvesting the wheat...
Why do you need to get rid of dandelions?
Instead of getting rid of them, I was hoping to find seeds for Russian dandelions. I'd like to grow some. Haven't been able to find any for sale though...
My dad told me that one year his school held a contest over the summer to see who could get the longest dandelion root.
Centimetres.
Their 13 cm high plant specimen had a 456 cm deep root.
That's about four and a half AR-15 assault rilfes
Depends if they're imperial Emperor penguins
Probably, since cm are almost as useless as the grand old imperial system
It says cm, so centimeters (1/100 meter) - slightly less than 0.4 inches
decimal place issues... I hope.
there are ten mm in a cm
456cm == 4560mm
there are 24.5 mm per inch (it is the law).
4550mm / 25.4 = 179.527 inches
or about 14.9 feet
which is about 5 yards
which is 20% of a 'murican football field if that helps
The above comment was pointing out that each 1 centimeter is slightly less than 0.4 inches. If you want to be more precise, each centimeter is about 0.3937 inches.
Your correction to my perception of what you intended 0.4 inches to represent is accepted.
Always good to have a weed puller in your toolshed. A stand-up puller, specifically, that operates as a lever, allowing it to first grab deeply and then through a rotation of the handle it pulls out quite a bit of the root system. A lifesaver if you have a rain garden which is really just a synonym for weed garden.
the link is to a dandelion root system that goes 450 centimeters into the ground, or 4.5 meters / 5 yards.
we'd like to know how much of that weed would your weed puller pull if your weed puller pulled a full pull?
I would not actually like to know that, since such a device seems impossible
Any recommendations for a particular weed puller?
I've never used a bad one, although I wouldn't class any of them as anything stellar. All of them have looked like a snake's twisted tongue.
Using them depends on the delicate combination and application of brute force and technique. If your technique and brute force is up to spec, a crowbar works as a makeshift weed puller.
It's kinda gimmicky but I found this thing on clearance at a local hardware store and it works fairly well (gets most weeds out without me having to bend over, which is nice): https://grampasweeder.com/collections/grampas-gardenware/pro...
It doesn't get everything but I can do more work on the tough ones when so many come right out.
How are these produced? I assume they're not actually digging a giant trench and taking a section, but are the drawings based on measurements of a specific individual in some way?
In any case, very cool to have such a collection.
They usually are. It’s a process akin to archaeology where they have to carefully wash away the dirt from the root system, measuring as they go. The problem with this method is that it's hard to reconstruct the entire 3d structure of bigger plants like trees so a lot of the root drawings on the site don’t accurately show how deep they go. It’s much easier with small plants where the researcher can control the soil used.
Modern methods like xray CT or ground penetrating radar can do it nondestructively in the field but they’re usually expensive to set up compared to just sending some grad students to dig.
I had assumed they had grown the plant between two vertical, parallel panes of glass.
That would probably produce a distorted image of the root system.
On the contrary - I think you'd get an accurate image of a very distorted root system!
> you'd get an accurate image of a very distorted root system
At the very least, you've taken a 3D system and reduced it to 2D. Additionally, you're exposing not only the root system but the entire microbiome around them to light and, almost certainly, unless you were incredibly meticulous about sealing, oxygen.
Me fail English? That's unpossible! :)
But yeah, that's what I mean.
Some of the images (at least one I saw of a tree) had section drawings both from the side and the top, so no!
By “usually”, have you any examples of what led to that conclusion?
The image says it took 6 persons 5 days to expose the roots of "Pinus cembra".
A few ways. This particular project is doing it by hand and very tedious.
The traditional way of transplanting large trees while keeping the root system intact is with a hydrovac. A machine the size of a jet engine that liquifies the soil with water and then vacuums it up. [1]
More recent developments have tried using an AirSpade which doesn’t use water but compressed air to blow apart and then suck the soil without making a slurry which is better as the soil can be redeposited in the same hole rather than discarded[2]
[1] https://youtube.com/shorts/HinwD5-Q2xA
[2] https://youtu.be/B3XomJ6Z1I4
I'm not sure that either of these methods count as traditional.
Air spades in particular are primarily used for rootwork, not transplanting. Bareroot methods are used for smaller trees. Bare rooting leaves roots in a very vulnerable state, so doing it on larger trees you intend to move and keep alive is a serious logistical challenge.
The most traditional method I can think of is "ball and burlap" where root balls are cut free in the field, and retrieved later in the season for final packaging.
[deleted]
Nice link, for anybody coming to the comments first, it isn't a sample of linux system layouts as I thought.
The context of HN is interesting. We see the word “root” and immediately assume it has to do with a filesystem or math… but not actual, physical roots haha
I was convinced it was about trees, just not ... that kind of tree!
I thought it'd be about the superuser account.
Who'd'a'thought I'd come across root drawings from my old university where I studied at the Forestry faculty which produced these.
HN is like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates: you never know what you might get!
I like to think of a plant’s roots as an analogy for the knowledge required to create something.
As a weird example, a web app may be like the exposed plant above ground while the roots are that developer’s knowledge. The plant is what others see, but the roots are the intricate system that was required to create the plant.
I expected *nix file system diagrams of some sort :) but this might be even better
From the perspective of a plant... In soil, you have: silt, clay and sand. Plus other plants, fungi, worms, microorganisms, rocks, insects, animals, etc. Each plant needs different nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and others), need different pH levels, can tolerate different salinity, etc. There might be different humidity, precipitation, wind speed, the water tables are different...
I guess all these differences translate into how the root must structurally develop to satisfy all those requirements and constraints.
Wow. What did I just see? Wonderful and so satisfying. Interesting to see that some plants are tiny above ground compared to their existence below ground - plant-cartels :)
I always suspected that rivers are like trees - they also might have a hierarchy of streams (root system) inside the sea. Sometimes this root system is exposed to above "ground" in the form of deltas and streams around them.
Not what I expected, but this is really cool.
Naive question, possibly poorly formed: what is the purpose of the parts of the plant? Eg the leaves are for collecting energy and the flower for reproduction...so is the "thing" that all that work is going to benefit really just the root stem?
The answer to pretty much every biological "why" question is: because it reproduced. It seems simplistic, but really, a thing is here and alive because its ancestors reproduced.
Your version of the question has surprising perspective- I think you are asking what the "it" of the plant is. That's an interesting personification of a plant. I think it points to the fact that plants may be safer underground- for anchoring, for not being eaten, for getting shielded from harsh elements.
Isn't reproduction the point? The roots exist to obtain water, nutrients, minerals; leaves gather energy from the sun; this is used to grow fruit, or whatever is used for reproduction
Really neat. I've often wondered about what the unexposed part of trees and plants are.
Like: am I walking on them? Are they tapping down somewhere deep or are they shallow.
The examples on a hill were interesting; I would have thought the extent would be skewed but it was fairly even
For plants, and trees too I guess, you can just grow your own, dig it up after a while, and inspect for yourself.
Today I finished picking tomatoes from my tomato plants and pulled them up to avoid them rotting in the field as the temperature goes down. It was curious to see how the root systems varied both between the two tomato varieties I had planted, the location of the plant in relation to surrounding grass, and the type of soil they ended up in.
I've been doing some small scale basil growing at home using kratky hydroponics in glass jars. It's always interesting to check how the roots have grown and expanded overnight.
Came here expecting Dynkin diagrams, got dandelions instead.
Was thinking about vectorizing these and using a pen plotter to make some cool art for my wall, but the images are not very high resolution, unfortunately :(
Recently there was an exhibition of tree root illustrations by Jitka Klimesova in Prague. I think there's potential for more art emerging from science.
reminds me alot of patterns from diffusion limited aggregation.
Nb. This isn't about Lie theory.
i thought these were nervous systems until i started reading comments
Imagine if there were a consciousness in each of those complex systems.
Bonatical plant systems that are lateral or burrow as this vertical way, which as the cross section for water collection is organic rorschach print.