Sure, I've actually built a simple model. I take the tree’s branching angles, the length ratios, and the time intervals between growth spurts, then feed them into a recursive algorithm that simulates the next branch. The output looks pretty close to the real pattern, but I keep tweaking the parameters until the simulation matches the observed growth exactly. It’s like a puzzle – every branch is a clue.

Yeah, the angles aren’t static. In the early years the branches spread out almost 60‑degrees from the trunk, but as the tree matures that spread tightens to around 30‑degrees. It’s a gradual taper, and if you plot angle versus age you get a gentle exponential decay. I’ve found that the same rule works for most species – just the constants shift a little.

Exactly, it’s like the tree is running a little optimization routine. When I plot the angles over years, they shrink in a predictable way, just like a program tightening its loops as it gets older. The post‑storm pine you mentioned shows the same pattern—nature’s way of reallocating resources.