• nargis@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    I thought they were Cycads at first (a class in gymnosperms). But these are angiosperms, apparently. Still look kind of similar to cycads, though, because of the clustered branches only at the apex. Cool tree.

    • multifariace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      I never took the time to look into this. They do have a primative look to them. I had to look up the flower. It was more complex than I expected.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      25 days ago

      Cycads have palm-like leaves though, so veeery different! I’d say baobabs are not too different in their growth habit from other Bombacoideae (Malvaceae). Compare with e.g. Ceiba, Pseudobombax, Cavanillesia. And the leaves look just like most Malvaceae plants as well ;)

      Fun fact: Pseudobombax trees can actually do photosynthesis with their trunk, which is green (or at least has green streaks).

      • nargis@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        You’re right, they do have very different leaves. Photosynthetic trunks are an interesting adaptation. Thanks for the fun fact.

  • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    but isn’t that just the most efficient arrangement in a crowded forest where each tree elbows its neighbours out of the way for whatever sunlight they can get?

    why waste energy in making branches and leaves low down when they’ll forever be in the shade?

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      Even in baobab forest pictures they seem far enough apart for sunlight not to be an issue. I’d hazard either an environmental or animal caused adaptation (but I can’t seem to find anything about why).

      I’d also say for forests in general “crown shyness” means if they get similar enough height they usually avoid one another rather than compete.

      • DarkSirrush@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        Aren’t baobabs absolutely ancient species of trees?

        It could be that they evolved before trees figured shit out, and just… Never needed to change after that.

        • Ledericas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          They evolved in a harsh arid environment, in this case Madagascar is where the tree in the picture is from, it’s endangered too. Trees evolved way before baobab did this, the trunk swells up with water to survive the desert environment.

          From the nature paper, they seem to be quite young, around 41million years ago, and the current species Madagascar around 20+myo.

    • timlyo@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      26 days ago

      I think Baobab are evolved to survive wildfires and then spread seeds once everything around them is dead. perhaps the branches are only up high so they don’t get caught by flames?

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    I have read of an African folk tale where baobab trees were the result of some deity pulling them out of the ground and punting then back in upside down.