Arborists Are Bringing the 'Dinosaur of Trees' Back To Life (qz.com) 148
Arborists are cloning saplings from the stumps of the world's largest, strongest, and longest-lived trees -- felled for timber more than a century ago -- to create redwood "super groves" that can help fight climate change. "Using saplings made from the basal sprouts of these super trees to plant new groves in temperate countries around the world means the growths have a better chance than most to become giants themselves," reports Quartz. "Their ancestors grew up to 400 ft (122 m) tall and to 35 ft in diameter, after all, larger than the largest living redwood today, a giant sequoia in California's Sequoia National Park." From the report: Already, super saplings from the project are thriving in groves in Canada, England, Wales, France, New Zealand, and Australia. None of these locales are places where coastal redwoods grow naturally, but they all have cool temperatures and sufficient fog for the redwoods, which drink moisture from the air in summer rather than relying on rain. [David Milarch, founder of the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive, a U.S. nonprofit that propagates the world's largest trees] calls this "assisted migration." Last month, his organization planted another such grove in the Presidio in San Francisco, California. The park lies along the U.S. west's redwood corridor, which runs from Oregon to California, home to the stumps the saplings were cloned from. But 95% of giant growths there were cut long ago. Many of the redwoods along the corridor now are young trees. Milarch notes that as the local climate is getting hotter and less foggy, it's no longer as conducive to producing the mega growths of yore. Now, 75 saplings created from the basal sprouts of the most rugged and massive ancient tree stumps of the coastal region will grow in the Presidio. They may eventually become the hardiest and tallest trees around, if their ancestors are any indication.
Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no! It's much worse than that [liveauctiongroup.net]!
Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees (Score:5, Funny)
Jurassic Bark!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
*Richard Attenborough voice*
Welcome...to Jurassic Gardens.
(Insert John Williams score here)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points.
Re: Jurassic Bark (Score:2)
Yeah I've seen this movie before. Character growth was very slow, and the acting was wooden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid they won't make it past 50. They'll be commercially farmed as hardwoods long before they reach full maturity.
Re:What would stop the greedy morons (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point. I was thinking of its strength and density, which is unusually high for a "softwood", and it's more durable than many woods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's wrong
gymnosperms are caled hardwoods
angiosperms are called softwoods
pines and redwoods are softwoods
oaks and balsa are hardwoods
internally, softwods and hardwoods have different mechanisms for water transport
Re: (Score:2)
Technicality it is a hardwood, because it has small leaves. Softwood has broad leaves
You got that the wrong way round. This botanical definition does not necessarily align with physically hard and soft; botanically, balsa is a hardwood.
Re: (Score:1)
from just harvesting them all again for short term profit, that which rules tiny little human brains?
Not a damn thing. Nominally park rangers discourage that with slight risk of fines and prison, but not right now. I've cut enough lumber in the past few weekends to make a hundred conference tables. It should keep me busy through retirement and beyond. Nice to not have job killing regulations keeping me from harvesting off the public lands.
More forests are good. (Score:3, Interesting)
The particular trees are less important.
Experts performing scientific feats are good. (Score:1)
Morons opining about what's important without a specific clue or credential to their name is less important.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we know, they are saving the world.
Carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
(although counting biomass-per-year, rapid growing, shorter lived tree like poplars wouldn't be bad in the short term either)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More forests are good. (Score:1)
Right. Something to consider before planting non-native trees and potentially destabilizing the local ecology. But sure, go ahead plant tall, fast-growing redwoods that will take over the local tree canopy within a matter of years. What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know that stability is the ultimate goal. Life should never have been allowed to start on Earth, polluting the pristine lifeless environment.
Most environmentalists are fools or worse.
Obligatory (Score:2)
See one redwood, you've seen 'em all.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that was a quote from Ronald Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Barrier? (Score:5, Funny)
They'd work along the northern border better
Perhaps we could plant them along the California-Oregon border. And just pull our lines back to something a bit more defensible.
There is unrest in the forest. (Score:1)
There is trouble with the trees.
lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. (Score:5, Informative)
To de-mystify:
Scientists are planting samples of giant Californian Redwood Trees, around the world in appropriate climates.
Global warming means California is no longer the best environment for them, so they are hand picking locations where it is the best environment.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean you actually RTFA?
What a sapling!
Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. (Score:4, Insightful)
They said "dinosaur" just to get everyone's attention, but this is more like a selective breeding of an existing species, and transplanting into alien habitats, which may or may not result in more big trees.
With most large species, the same thing that makes them big also makes them specialists. And they tend to be most prone to dying off with slight changes, because the environment changes faster than they can evolve - a problem simple and small organisms don't have. There's no particularly good reason to think that just because these trees grew old and huge under ideal conditions that they are any better at tolerating less-good conditions (like getting transplanted 12,000 miles away in a different hemisphere).
We'll see, I guess, in about 2000 years...
Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. (Score:4, Informative)
It's hard to know what these people are actually trying to accomplish. The trees didn't die out because of climate change, their population was reduced because of logging, and there are lots of them growing now (mostly not as big, though). All up and down the coast of California, and even in the Sierra's, there are plenty of places for these trees to grow, and where they are growing.
Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. (Score:4, Funny)
It's almost as if the article, and summary, where posted just to get attention to their program, and that somehow, the otherwise unerring bullshit detection instincts of the typical Slahsdot editor got, on this one rare occasion, fooled.
Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying you're wrong but redwoods do have an impressive trait or two beyond height. The same bark that requires exposure to moist air also makes them mostly fire retardant. At least in the context of the type of fire present in wild fires.
Re: (Score:2)
They said "dinosaur" just to get everyone's attention, but this is more like a selective breeding of an existing species,
God damn it.
I had my Ian Malcolm lines all set up, "this wasn't some tree killed by deforestation"... Well fuck me, it was.
Serious note though... As someone who was born in Australia the flagrant introduction of species into different environments can be devastating to the local wildlife. I know the idea is to save the Sequoias which are endangered, but we need to be careful that introducing them to foreign habitats isn't done at the detriment to that habitat (destroying the habitat may also be detri
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, but It takes 2000 years to grow to full height. I don't think it's that much of a risk compared to rabbits or cane toads. Plus, it's probably not going to work in any case, they evolved to work in a very specific, rare (bordering on unique), habitat, and most of Australia is *utterly* incompatible. I don't see much danger of being overrun.
If it was paleozoic glossopteris, then it would be more of a concern. They are about at close to managing that as they are T. Rex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more the merrier, I say. Redwoods are cool. They look like something from fantasy. I'd like to see them all over. I was just 5 when my family went west for a vacation (this was the 1960s) and visited CA, CO, AZ, and UT.. I remember.. just barely.. the giant redwood you could drive through, it was one of those things that left an indelible impression from so long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
it's still has the best environment which is shrinking
they always did grow in relatively narrow band with the proper conditions.
I don't see them faring well anywhere else. the big trees in california are 2000 - 3000 years old, these transplants might do okay for the first century or six....
This is cool and all (Score:1)
But doesn't do shit for climate change.
I like having giant trees again, even though I will be dead long before they reach max size.
But these things grow slowly and are not the best at carbon capture.
Plant some bamboo or some other fast growing tree if you want that.
Re:This is cool and all (Score:4, Insightful)
If these guys want to try tackle the problem this way, may as well let them. If you've got other ideas or a different approach, then you should be free to do that. Sure this isn't going to magically solve everything overnight, but it's better than just sitting around expecting someone else to do something. It's also kind of cool in its own right, so who cares if you think they have silly motives.
Re: (Score:3)
Invasive Species (Score:5, Insightful)
No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Because redwoods actually require forest fires to properly open their pine cones. Without that heating the majority of the seeds will never properly germinate or be released from the cones, causing them to be eaten, decomposed, or be outcompeted long before they can become a threat to local flora.
Having said that, my real question is: 'Why aren't they selling cuttings of these in their store for local restoration in central/eastern California. You know, the NATURAL RANGE for Redwoods/Giant Sequoias? Persona
Re: (Score:3)
Milarch notes that as the local climate is getting hotter and less foggy, it's no longer as conducive to producing the mega growths of yore.
So their natural habitat is no longer the way it was. The saplings will not grow that easily where their ancestor stood of which they are clones.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because they are inherently not "invasive species" nor should the be "removed immediately" because they're being put there deliberately.
You know, some conscious thought is required when stringing together words that you've heard before.
Re: (Score:2)
"A species is only considered invasive if it spreads at an uncontrollable rate and causes harm to the local ecosystem."
Unfortunately, you generally don't find that part out until later. I suspect (i.e., without proof) that most invasive species were introduced at one time.
Hardiest? (Score:2)
They may eventually become the hardiest and tallest trees around, if their ancestors are any indication.
Tallest, yes, but hardy implies that they can endure difficult conditions. If they struggle to endure reduced fog in their native habitat this suggests that they are not particularly hardy.
Re: (Score:2)
USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By "agriculturalist", you mean "the people who make it possible to provide for the human population", right?
Re: (Score:1)
Um..something isn't right. (Score:5, Interesting)
They take 3-4k years to grow, and from what I've seen of sequoia trees, they have few branches and few needles to photosynthesize CO2. Surely smaller. faster growing, more leaf/needle sprouting plants such as bamboo would be faster at sucking up CO2.
It's nice that someone is planning for after we're gone...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I think you're off by a bit there. Redwoods grow a few feet per year, some varieties as much as six feet. It may take 100+ years to grow a 400 foot tall redwood. It's more likely these will grow for less than 100 years and top out at 90 feet, which is what typically happens when redwoods are cultivated.
To create a biological carbon sink, you need plants that will live for a long time and resist decay. Bamboo grows fast, but sequesters carbon for a decade or two. Trees like redwoods sequester carbon f
Re: (Score:3)
They take 3-4k years to grow,
These are the coast redwoods. Their maximum lifespan is about 2000 years, and most don't make it past 800. They tend to topple in storms around that time, like the Dyerville Giant that toppled in 1991, which is when they discovered it had been the world's tallest tree. It was 1600 years old though.
Several people are feigning horror that cuttings propagated from the largest trees the world has ever known (as far we can tell) are being grown outside of their recent natural range as if propagating any plant in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Salmon and other species are also being moved to places that will eventually be like their original locations. Sometimes you have to realize that change happens, and adapt.
Re: (Score:1)
The article, to me at least, seemed to be a little fuzzy about whether it was discussing giant redwoods vs coast redwoods. Giant redwoods do not actually grow in the coastal fog zone, so it was kind of confusing. Giant redwoods tend to be found in the Sierra Foothills. They are the most massive trees in the world, and live potentially for a few millennia.
But coast redwoods actually grow taller than giant redwoods. They grow pretty fast and live for hundreds of years (still not too shabby). This is exactly w
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we really need more temperate swamps, not forests.
That said, wood --> building materials and wood --> carbon neutral energy are decent 'second best' choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair to that specific asshole, the article specifically states that it's outside their natural habitat.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot really is dead - Netcraft confirms it (Score:2)
There's 71 comments so far and not one Ian Malcolm quote...
1. Life uh.... finds a way.
2. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
Assisted invasion of species (Score:2)
Doesn't this make the trees invasive species? Even if it is assisted.
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely true. Also, redwoods and aother large trees tend to hinder the ecology under them. The remaining redwood forests are very quiet and inactive in the shade of the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. Planting a tree specifically for the benefit received does not constitute doing harm.
Introducing a non-native species does not automatically make it invasive.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that originally they were present in many other locations, it's more like reintroducing a species
Nice (Score:3)
Now we only have to wait for 4000 years to see if it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we only have to wait for 4000 years to see if it worked.
Just use the banana ray from The Orville on it.