The Story of the World's Loneliest Tree (nationalgeographic.com) 24
A single wild tree on a New Zealand island could soon get some neighbors -- and that's a good thing. From a report: After seven decades of cuttings, failures, plant enzymes, a little coaxing, and a Maori blessing, one of the world's rarest trees -- which lives on a tiny island 40 miles off the northern edge of New Zealand -- might lose its title. And that's a good thing. A team of scientists and Ngati Kuri, the regional Maori tribe, recently returned from the island, where they scoped out potential conservation plans. Ngati Kuri members even planted 80 kaikomako saplings on the mainland this year. Yet those positive developments happened only by answering two important questions. How do you rescue a tree with no mate, and who shares that task? The story of the kaikomako resembles its home: rocky, with a generous dose of luck. Botanists identified one wild specimen in 1945 on the largest of the Three Kings Islands, Manawatawhi in Maori, which is a little bigger than Manhattan's Central Park. The tree isn't simply remote. It's completely alone. Blame the goats.
Four were released on the island in 1889 as a food source for possible shipwreck victims, and the population increased one hundredfold until the invasive animals were eradicated in 1946. Goats ate several island plant species out of existence, but the kaikomako survived by way of the classic real estate maxim. Location. In this case, it lived out of reach in a steep boulder field 700 feet above the ceaseless swells. Some scientists recognized the kaikomako as invaluable, a piece of New Zealand's biological heritage one calamitous storm away from vanishing. Others questioned whether it really was alone; perhaps it was a far-flung individual of an ordinary tree type that didn't require extra concern. You can read rest of the story on National Geographic website.
Four were released on the island in 1889 as a food source for possible shipwreck victims, and the population increased one hundredfold until the invasive animals were eradicated in 1946. Goats ate several island plant species out of existence, but the kaikomako survived by way of the classic real estate maxim. Location. In this case, it lived out of reach in a steep boulder field 700 feet above the ceaseless swells. Some scientists recognized the kaikomako as invaluable, a piece of New Zealand's biological heritage one calamitous storm away from vanishing. Others questioned whether it really was alone; perhaps it was a far-flung individual of an ordinary tree type that didn't require extra concern. You can read rest of the story on National Geographic website.
"Blame the goats." (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean humans? The same group which has caused the extinction of some species and is working hard on others? The one which says its actions don't have any effect?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Europeans a century ago felt that all things existed exclusively to server man, as the bible claims. People could eat goats, but not a kaikomako tree, so "obviously" raising goats was more important.
The further away we get from blind belief in the Abrahamic religions the healthier our planet will become.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yeah, now it's only the Americans that think this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Re: (Score:1)
No one argued with what you had said about religion but just doubted that it was a cause of influence in such a decision to put goats on the island. However to address your bias directly it is well misdirected as your quoted verse would have to have a strong level of interpretation to say that meant to lay waste to the earth to
Re:"Blame the goats." (Score:5, Insightful)
Four were released on the island in 1889 as a food source for possible shipwreck victims
You can blame them all you want, but I'm pretty sure they're dead by now. The utility in blaming the dead for the misfortunes of the present is incredibly low. We can learn from the mistakes and attempt to vow not to make similar mistakes, but only the living have the power to change course of the present to a new future. So, and this is merely my humble opinion, learn the mistakes of the dead but save the energy you would expend on blaming the dead, and instead channel it to something that presents more utility in directing the living to make present changes.
No, blame the idiots who released a non-native species into a closed ecosystem.
No, applaud the efforts of mankind in their attempts in righting the grievous mistakes made long ago. The dead do not deserve the living's attention on this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
It was common back in the days of sail to release sheep, goats and pigs on small, unihabited islands in case sailors were ever shipwrecked there.. A bunch of my high school classmates caught a wild sheep on an island in the Marlborough Soumds ina 1975 school trip.. (they let it go since we had plenty of food. There was also a pair of penguins under the hut we were staying in. They were not friendly. One of the reasons that Captain Cook and later visitors to Aotearoa was that there were no native mammals the
Re: (Score:3)
One of the reasons that Captain Cook and later visitors to Aotearoa was that there were no native mammals there.
Looks like you deleted some important words there.
Far more ecological damage was done by the importation of predators like cats, stoats, weasels and dogs which have killed off most of the native flightless birds.
Yes, if you're deciding the charismatic fauna are more important than flora.
But is it a good thing? (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know, guys ...
And that is a good thing.
Unfortunately, pretty good ... (Score:1)
World's Loneliest Tree
It's still alone (Score:3)
Making clones of a single tree doesn't help, it's still the same tree all over.
Ask the Cavendish banana.
Clones (Score:4, Informative)
Redundancy. Multiple copies in different locations. Even if those locations are as little as a few km's apart.
Trees can die in many ways. But with multiple specimens, a species can survive just fine even if all specimens are genetically identical, vulnerable to the same fungi, insect attacks, or sensitive to the same climate conditions. Whatever kills one specimen, may not be present in other locations. Also genetic material may change due to mutations. And in general the # of mutations occurring would (roughly) scale with the # of specimens, right? (yes I know that doesn't say much about the chance of mutated genes propagating).
I've got a small tree on my balcony which until the early 1940's was only known from fossil records. Then a few specimens were found in China. If no-one had noticed those, this species [wikipedia.org] easily could have gone extinct. Not today though. It's been grown & distributed all over the world and becoming a popular ornamental tree. At this point, lack of genetic diversity would have little effect on the chances of this species surviving. Even if wiped out from its original distribution in the wild (which is what its "conservation status" usually indicates).
Re: (Score:3)
Personification much? (Score:1)
So,,,, is there a photo of this tree anywhere? (Score:2)
Also: National Geographic site says "you have only two free articles left, subscribe now..."