Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 121 posts

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#21

Post by kseistrup »

njarboe wrote: post #18

This species of tree grows all over Northern Coastal California and there huge preserved areas of old growth trees throughout the region. It is great to keep replanting coastal redwoods to help replace all the ones that were cut down, but this cloning of gigantic old stumps sure feels like a pure propaganda move with no ecological benefit over using seeds. It is likely a bad idea to plant a lot of clones of single in…

Except the trees that were used for cloning have a proven track record of being able to survive for hundreds of years (“some of which were 3,000 years old”).

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#22

Post by blux »

jmspring wrote: post #13

Sadly a lot of our forest eco-systems, especially in CA are at risk. Drought, poor forest management, bark beattle, over forestation, etc. Were forestry practices 100+ years ago good, not really - a lot of these ancient trees spawned eco-systems in themselves (evident in the Headwaters groves). That said, modern "do nothing" approaches pushed by environmental "concerns" are the exact opposite of the over-logging. Sad…

The fact that you would need to do dead tree removal is a sign that something is wrong. A natural, thriving forest should not need such measures.

I don't think a lot of imagination is needed to come up with the reason why we see these changes. It will only get worse before it gets better.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#23

Post by thaumasiotes »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17
newnewpdro wrote: post #6

This isn't the Wooly Mammoth. My impression is we already have the same species of Redwoods living today, they just need a lot more years of growth to reach such epic proportions. Am I missing something?

I wonder the same; did they 'clone' the tree, or just propagate the saplings? I think the latter is a lot more believable and less clickbait.

The article specifies that they took cuttings, a pretty ancient technology. But the fact that the technology is old doesn't mean it's not cloning. Plants are easy to clone.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#24

Post by stochastic_monk »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #23
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder the same; did they 'clone' the tree, or just propagate the saplings? I think the latter is a lot more believable and less clickbait.

The article specifies that they took cuttings, a pretty ancient technology. But the fact that the technology is old doesn't mean it's not cloning. Plants are easy to clone.

It says “DNA” and “genetic material”, while also talking about finding living tissue and growing from it. I think the presentation is either misleading or confusing.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#25

Post by Tepix »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #16
raptorraver wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget the horrendous speed we are destroying Amazon's rainforsests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...

"we" are not doing that; if "we" did "we" could take responsibility and stop it. There's some very specific companies and governments we can point a finger at.

Consumers around the world are buying the wood and the palm oil that gets planted after the trees have been chopped down.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#26

Post by Wintamute »

drieddust wrote: post #7

That stump is sad reminder of greedy destruction we have bought to the world. I hope we can reverse it.

The people that felled that tree for its essential raw materials did so under hardships and conditions thankfully many of us will never know, and not in small part due to the toil and labour of previous generations.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#27

Post by ahje »

njarboe wrote: post #18

This species of tree grows all over Northern Coastal California and there huge preserved areas of old growth trees throughout the region. It is great to keep replanting coastal redwoods to help replace all the ones that were cut down, but this cloning of gigantic old stumps sure feels like a pure propaganda move with no ecological benefit over using seeds. It is likely a bad idea to plant a lot of clones of single in…

The first sentence of the article mentions the saplings have been taken from multiple sources (five different stumps), which means there's probably some genetic variation amongst the saplings.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#28

Post by matco11 »

“Cloning” here seems the wrong (click-batey) choice of words.

They have horticulturally propagated redwood trees - that’s a relatively simple technique, commonly used by your average gardener.

What’s special here is that they found which conditions maximize the yield of the redwoods propagation and they are planting colonies of the new trees in areas around the world that offer particularly good/promising climatic conditions.

As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#29

Post by shaki-dora »

londons_explore wrote: post #20
jmspring wrote: post #13

Sadly a lot of our forest eco-systems, especially in CA are at risk. Drought, poor forest management, bark beattle, over forestation, etc. Were forestry practices 100+ years ago good, not really - a lot of these ancient trees spawned eco-systems in themselves (evident in the Headwaters groves). That said, modern "do nothing" approaches pushed by environmental "concerns" are the exact opposite of the over-logging. Sad…

Can you explain what's wrong with the "do nothing" approach? It seems to me to be the most natural and clearly the cheapest too. Perhaps simple steps like putting up fences or signs saying 'nature reserve, keep out" might be worthwhile, but I don't see how any more invasive steps will lead to a more natural forest.

Global warming is a likely suspect for changes in the insect ecology that happen faster than any forest can adapt, such as beatle infestation. Some species may profit by, for example, surviving winters that would usually kill them in large numbers. Even more species might suffer, either because they are eaten by the former, or because their lifecycle may require harsh winters.

Of course other factors than just temperature are swinging widely: California is probably drier than before. Increased winds may make fires more likely etc.

Other natural phenomena also don’t respect entry bans: invasive species come to mind, and so does pollution.

I don’t claim to know if interventions are helpful, nor if they could ever be helpful enough to make a real difference. And of course nature will survive, and even forests may eventually adapt to the new regime. But of course the knowledge that there will again be a forest in that location in a millennium or three is of little help to someone who wants to show their grandchildren an old-growth first.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#30

Post by quixoticelixer- »

kseistrup wrote: post #21
njarboe wrote: post #18

This species of tree grows all over Northern Coastal California and there huge preserved areas of old growth trees throughout the region. It is great to keep replanting coastal redwoods to help replace all the ones that were cut down, but this cloning of gigantic old stumps sure feels like a pure propaganda move with no ecological benefit over using seeds. It is likely a bad idea to plant a lot of clones of single in…

Except the trees that were used for cloning have a proven track record of being able to survive for hundreds of years (“some of which were 3,000 years old”).

It would be highly unlikely that the seeds aren't also capable doing that.
Post reply on HN