What causes figure

[Pwk5017]

Is figure in wood caused by environmental factors or is it genetic? By "figure", im referring to curl etc. Actually, that might be another discussion point, the various distinctions of nomenclature used to describe desirable grain patterns.

[CandorLush]

Hadn't put much thought into it but you got me curious and I found this when I started looking for an answer http://www.lespaulforum.com/slubarticle/maple/figure.html

[Llama]

33 minutes ago, Pwk5017 said:

or is it genetic?

When a daddy tree and a mommy tree fall in love, they have a baby tree. This baby tree inherits some of the traits from the mommy and daddy.

[Pwk5017]

27 minutes ago, Llama said:

When a daddy tree and a mommy tree fall in love, they have a baby tree. This baby tree inherits some of the traits from the mommy and daddy.

Why arent we only breeding attractive mommy and daddy trees then? Somebody needs to get on that. 

[Llama]

1 minute ago, Pwk5017 said:

Why arent we only breeding attractive mommy and daddy trees then? Somebody needs to get on that. 

 

[Tom Cancelleri]

Depends on how much the tree goes to the gym and if when they leave the gym if they go get a cheeseburger and fries, or if they have a shot of wheatgrass. 

[BonPacific]

Different kinds of figure have different reasons. Burls are the most striking, and are essentially tree scabs. They grow over damage to the tree, and the figure is due to the burl not growing in the cylindrical pattern of the rest of the tree.

[Barron]

It's both genetic and environmental, with probably the edge to environmental.  And Pwk5017, foresters do select for the best trees on commercial forest land, a unfortunately, they usually define that as the fastest growing trees.

[Coop]

6 hours ago, Llama said:

When a daddy tree and a mommy tree fall in love, they have a baby tree. This baby tree inherits some of the traits from the mommy and daddy.

You really went out on a limb for that one

[phinds]

On 12/6/2016 at 2:09 PM, Pwk5017 said:

Is figure in wood caused by environmental factors or is it genetic? By "figure", im referring to curl etc. Actually, that might be another discussion point, the various distinctions of nomenclature used to describe desirable grain patterns.

Here is an extensive, illustrated, discussion of figure and grain:

http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/_discussion_figureandgrain.htm

 

 

 

[ClassAct]

Q: What causes figure?

A: Puberty.

[davewyo]

On 12/6/2016 at 0:09 PM, Pwk5017 said:

Is figure in wood caused by environmental factors or is it genetic?

Yes. Figure is caused by environmental factors in trees that are genetically susceptible to it. At least that's my take on it.

I am not an expert, or even a neophyte, at tree anatomy/physiology/etc., but I have theories. Mind you, they are just theories.

Curly lumber is caused by the wind pushing the tree back and forth throughout the growing season. This waviness in the grain along the length of the trunk manifests itself as curly figure when it is cut into a board. Pinon Pines exposed to the wind in the desert southwest develop spiral grain, which is super interesting.

Flame figure is the same as curly, but the wind caused wider waves in the grain than curly lumber.

Crotch figure is caused by branching, where the grain "tries" to follow the main stem and the branch at the same time.

Birdseye is caused by a trunk which repeatedly grows dinky little branches. These branches are not viable and quickly die off, but they cause a "blemish" in the grain. If it does it year after year you get birdseye figure.

Burls are caused by injury or pest invasion.

Spalting is caused by fungus.

Ambrosia by the larvae of beetles.

 

 

[phinds]

1 hour ago, davewyo said:

Yes. Figure is caused by environmental factors in trees that are genetically susceptible to it. At least that's my take on it.

That is at best an incomplete statement. It IS true in some cases and I have no argument with most of your post BUT ... what you seem to miss entirely is that a lot of figure types are simply inherent in the wood and have nothing to do with environmental factors. Ray flakes in white oak as just one example out of MANY. I recommend that you check out the link I provided previously

 

[davewyo]

6 hours ago, phinds said:

That is at best an incomplete statement. It IS true in some cases and I have no argument with most of your post BUT ... what you seem to miss entirely is that a lot of figure types are simply inherent in the wood and have nothing to do with environmental factors. Ray flakes in white oak as just one example out of MANY. I recommend that you check out the link I provided previously

 

I did read much of what you have in that link before I threw in my two cents. I did not click on every link on the page but I followed quite a number that interested me. It probably goes without saying but your website is a treasure trove of wonderful information and it is much appreciated. And, you're right. The statement which you quoted is certainly only part of the equation.

Sure, there are many types of figure you list for which I did not venture to postulate a cause. Many of those I skipped may be caused by genetics alone. As I understand gene theory, everything in biological organisms is caused by genetics.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. The truth is I don't know what I'm talking about, I was just giving my inexpert theories for the causes of a few types of figure.

I think I understand the distinction you make between figure and grain.

Merely for discussion purposes, I would consider your example of ray flakes to be grain not figure. It's just tangential grain rather than longitudinal grain.

[phinds]

1 hour ago, davewyo said:

Merely for discussion purposes, I would consider your example of ray flakes to be grain not figure. It's just tangential grain rather than longitudinal grain.

I also have no desire to be argumentative, just informative. Rays are not part of the grain, they are a separate type of wood tissue. I think perhaps the issue you are having is that you use a definition of "grain" which is WAY broader than is normal when discussing wood anatomy and in fact are using it even more broadly than Hoadley does (which, as you will know from my site discussion, is the one place where I disagree w/ Hoadley, with, I believe, fully substantiated reasons). I consider grain to be not, as you apparently do, everything having to do with wood natural wood anatomy but rather the constitution of growth rings and nothing more. Do you really, like Hoadley, consider bird's eye to be grain? Google "bird's eye grain" and then Google "Bird's eye figure" and you will see that "figure" occurs is common usage something like 3:1 against "grain".

Anyway, it's not clear to me that I am "right" in any objective sense, I just follow common usage and there seems to be no academic or regulatory arbiter for such terms. SO ... being the authoritative bastard than I am, I simply declare myself right

Further, for the edification of any who have not followed the link I provided, here's my original discussion of the matter:

A note about "grain" and "figure". These terms are used in sometimes interchangeably in a way that I believe to be incorrect. In this glossary, I take a point of view which I believe is the "correct" one, but I want to acknowledge that it is opposed to that taken by some, including a man whom I consider very much my better in regards to knowledge of wood and that is Dr. Bruce Hoadley who has written two books that are widely, and I believe appropriately, considered to be the definitive works in their field. These are "Identifying Wood" and "Understanding Wood". On this particular issue, I have a strong and supportable reason for differing with Dr. Hoadley.

What is presented below is first a discussion of how I see the two terms and why, and following that an extensive list of the causes for figure and the types of figure.

Had this difference of opinion been with anyone other than Dr. Hoadley, I would simply have ignored them and gone on my way and would not have subjected my readers to this diatribe. However, I think that regarding ANY other information about wood, anyone who ignores Dr. Hoadley is being foolish. As young people say these days, when it comes to knowledge about wood, "He da man".

[and I go on from there with a detailed discussion of why I use "figure" and "grain" the way I do]

[davewyo]

50 minutes ago, phinds said:

I consider grain to be not, as you apparently do, everything having to do with wood natural wood anatomy but rather the constitution of growth rings and nothing more. Do you really, like Hoadley, consider bird's eye to be grain?

 

Yeah, you're right. My characterization of ray flecks as grain is inconsistent with my definition of grain. So I take that back.

So, yes, I think of grain as having to do with the growth rings as you do.

My confusion stems from the terms being used. Grain is an anatomical term of sorts, where perhaps "figure" is more of a judgement on aesthetics about how the lumber "defects" appeal to the eye. Figure is a broader term which includes weirdness in the grain and other things. For example... Curly figure is caused by wavy grain which is to say that it is caused by the anatomical configuration of the growth rings. Blue stain "figure" is caused by a fungus that is associated with the Pine Bark Beetle. Both are "figure" but the blue stain has less to do with the growth ring anatomy.

Birdseye is a difficult one to categorize. I think of it as figure rather than grain, but an argument could be made that it is a peculiar type of grain patterning. As the branch grows off the trunk it causes the grain to be distorted and makes those eyes. It almost looks like each little eye is formed by tiny unformed growth rings that would have been more pronounced had the limb survived.

I'm probably wrong so I don't take it harshly or consider it internet flaming if you disagree. I'm curious about the factors that make up figure, but I haven't gone into it to a large extent, and for the purposes of furniture making it is good background material but not terribly important.

 

[wtnhighlander]

I don't really care which is correct...it's all just "purty wood", to me!

[phinds]

3 hours ago, davewyo said:

I'm probably wrong so I don't take it harshly or consider it internet flaming if you disagree. I'm curious about the factors that make up figure, but I haven't gone into it to a large extent, and for the purposes of furniture making it is good background material but not terribly important.

I think we're mostly in agreement and I very much appreciate these discussion because I frequently learn something from them.

2 hours ago, Mike. said:

I wouldn't characterize things like ambrosia or spalting as grain or figure, because they are caused by externalities completely independent from the growth of the tree.  

I see what you mean but they are always spoken of as figure and I never try to make up my own rules or terms but rather just report on what is common usage (which which I often disagree, although I think on "grain" and "figure" I'm pretty much following the consensus of common usage.

I also agree that this kind of nit-picking semantics gets too far down into the weeds sometimes but the goal of my illustrated glossary is to report on common usage, no matter how nit-picky it gets.

My favorite example on this is "quarter cut" v.s. "quartersawn". I FREQUENTLY see illustrations of rift cut planks, which ARE produced by a process called "quarter cutting" represented as "quartersawn" which is a whole different thing. I think you can legitimately argue about at what angle it changes from quartersawn to rift cut / rift sawn, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would look at a plank with the growth rings at 50 degrees to tangential and call it quartersawn but that's exactly what a lot of those illustration DO show.

 

 

 

[Marmotjr]

On 12/6/2016 at 3:11 PM, Pwk5017 said:

Why arent we only breeding attractive mommy and daddy trees then? Somebody needs to get on that. 

Because somebody thinks we still need poplar for some reason.