Pinus bungeana bark

Since we've been in a feuding mentality lately, I thought I'd dredge up an old one and see what becomes of it. Normally I wouldn't but I ran into a picture in my archives which raised a question in my mind. What factors play a part in expression of bark color on Lacebark Pine. Vv and I discussed it a bit a while a back and I don't remember what really was decided, if anything. Being an obstinate creature, I held onto my beliefs regardless of the outcome. Since it's snowing and blowing again today, I skipped out of work and was aimlessly opening folders of images from years past. I ran into an image of Lacebark Pine from Spring Grove Cemetery and this thread was born. Wikipedia describes the bark as:

This description just about fits the picture that VV posted in the earlier thread to a tee. Also, it is fairly similar the tree that I saw at SGC. It is interesting to note that the colors being revealed on the smaller branches are a yellow/green and are very similar to those on the older trunks. Not a dramatic shift in color over a period of years. Now contrast it with the trees at the Dawes Arboretum which have branches and trunks expressing white/silver/gray, even on the smaller branches. Again, not a lot of color shifting over the years. This leads me to my question: are the colors expressed a matter of genetics or environment? I think that I proved in the earlier thread that there is a fungus(or something) that grows on the bark that makes a greenish tinge but doesn't affect the overall color drastically but doesn't explain the variance in the images that I'm posting. Since I can't seem to make links work lately, I've one picture with this post and one following. The first shows the described bark; the second shows the silvery form.

Best Regards,
Ernie

The second image is of 'Silver Ghost' at the Dawes Arboretum.

It seems to me that it must at least be partly due to genetics. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a cultivar as Silver Ghost that has stood the test of time and climates.

LHDP:

I'm glad, that upon reflection, that you refused to simply believe me and tested the theory in the field, as it were. I'm also glad that you supplied your own visual corroborating evidence.

I still ask the question (unanswered from last go round):

Are you taking pictures of, or observing all sides of these plants? Or just the sunny (emasculated by pruners) angle?

I don't doubt that there are some genetics at play, but it would seem like that if there were that much difference around that literature would reference it somewhere. Maybe Resin is keeping a poker face till his patent comes through...

I would laugh out loud if the old curator or director of one of these collections were to let it slip that it was simply some out-of-control volunteers, a novice-but-zealous intern, or simply one of the mowing guys that fell asleep that took out all the low branches of a specimen like Dawes' 'Silver Ghost'.

Then, they just made the best of it by naming it after what they did to the perpetrator.

Hi Ernie,

Other factors that may be involved include age of the tree (i.e., thickness of the stems and bark; young saplings have greener bark than trees over ~30-50 years old), rainfall (how much the bark gets 'washed' by rain), and whether there is any algae (greenish) growing on the bark.

Photos I've seen from drier areas of China where it is native, show whiter bark than trees in cultivation in higher rainfall areas, which could be either from wind-deposited dust, or white resinous substances exuded from the bark. Either could be washed/weathered off by rain in wetter areas.

Genetic variation between individuals could also play a part, but would need to be tested for carefully. Anyone got a few hectares where they could plant a large number for comparitive growth over the next century or two?? :-))

Resin

Hi everyone,

Who's ready to have a good laugh at my expense? I went out to photograph a particular Lacebark Pine in the nursery. It's a nice, dense one and I was certain that it would prove my point. As a matter of fact, I did photograph it and it did seem to hold up a good majority of my belief. I was about to walk back to the truck when I took a look at a neighboring tree. It had had a large portion of it split off in an ice storm about 6-7 years ago and the bark has now gone a nice olive and silvery color. I have added a picture of one specific part of it that really made clear what was going on in my little mystery plot. As I studied it, a new theory began to grow in my mind. A piece of bark falls off revealing a yellow/green surface below it. Depending on how much light it is exposed to, the color transitions from yellow/green to green to olive, etc. If it is revealed to a lot of light, some of it goes white. If not too much light, it stays more neutral. With the few trees that we have, I've not seen the progession to the red tones (my favorite colors on the trees) so I suppose that it comes in at a later date. So, if a tree sheds a lot of bark at once, there will be a a corresponding yellow/green look. If the trunk is exposed to a lot of light (as well as the other elements) it will rapidly progress through the greens and neutrals (or perhaps bypass some steps?) and change to a silvery color. As these thoughts were running through my mind, I thought to myself, "Golly, that progression idea sounds kinda familiar." Perhaps like the quote in my first post? I could have saved myself the running around, theorizing, mental agony, etc. if I'd have just paid close attention to the image from Spring Grove. There is still a lot of old bark that's been shed but still hanging around in crotches or just barely hanging on. Very good evidence of a mass exfoliation to reveal a lot of yellow/green trunk. Couple that with the bright blue quote next to it and it's a no-brainer! Oh well, it was a good mental excersize to keep the old thinker in good shape. As far as VV's quite humorous commentary on 'Spring Ghost": I have wondered about that myself. As a matter of fact, I brazenly suggested the same thing right here at DG, minus the intrigue.

To be honest, as I look at the pictures of it, it does appear a bit more attractive than other Lacebarks. But then, I've been fooled by appearances before haven't I? Perhaps I'd better lay off of the Lacebarks for a while.


So, I have this theory about Parrotia bark....................

Regards,
Ernie

An image to compare against 'Spring Ghost' bark. This is from a fairly young tree.

Ernie