Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the same-thing-happens-to-my-wife-after-too-much-nibbling dept.

In spring, the young, delicate shoots in the forest light up, bright and May green. The buds and shoots are the future of the forests as they allow young trees to grow. The problem for the trees is: Roe deer like to eat them, and especially their buds. With a bit of luck, the young, gnawed saplings will only take a few more years to grow than their non-bitten conspecifics. In the worst case, they will become stunted trees, or they will have to give up their fight for survival after a number of years. In this respect, roe deer can cause a great deal of damage and hinder the regeneration of many deciduous tree species.

In order to protect themselves against roe deer browsing, trees purposely put up a fight. By studying young beeches (Fagus sylvatica) and maples (Acer pseudoplatanus), biologists from the Leipzig University and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) have now found out that trees are able to recognise precisely whether a branch or bud has been purposefully nibbled off by a roe deer -- or just randomly torn off by a storm or other mechanical disturbance. The saliva of the animals gives them the signal. If a deer feeds on a tree and leaves its saliva behind, the tree will increase its production of salicylic acid. This hormone, in turn, signals to the plant to increase the production of specific tannins. It is known for some of these substances that they influence the feeding behaviour of roe deer, with the result that the deer lose their appetite for the shoots and buds. In addition, the saplings increase their concentrations of other plant hormones, growth hormones in particular. These hormones enhance the growth of the remaining buds to compensate for the lost ones.

After the deer, and only deer, nibble buds off beech saplings, the trees turn bitter to discourage further grazing.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:02AM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:02AM (#401632)

    Not drunk enough to bring up the obvious corollary on human females that would be more than welcome on Fark. Too drunk to resist posting this.

    Once again, lets play "Interesting/Insightful/Funny/Disagree/Offtopic/Troll" roulette with the mod system here.

    Me? I'm shooting for funny, but then again I'm an optimist.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Some call me Tim on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:11AM

    by Some call me Tim (5819) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:11AM (#401634)

    I'm drunk enough to tell you that human females have indeed developed a defense to males who drool on them. That hand print on my cheek lasted a good 6 hours. ;-)

    --
    Questioning science is how you do science!