41–50 of 147 posts
BBC version of same article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68518623 > An estimated 500,000 trees are in the UK compared to 80,000 in California. > To assess how these towering giants are adapting to their UK home, scientists selected a sample of nearly 5,000 trees to study at Wakehurst, Benmore Botanic Garden in Argyllshire, Scotland and Havering Country Park in Essex. > However, while the trees are…
BBC version of same article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68518623 > An estimated 500,000 trees are in the UK compared to 80,000 in California. > To assess how these towering giants are adapting to their UK home, scientists selected a sample of nearly 5,000 trees to study at Wakehurst, Benmore Botanic Garden in Argyllshire, Scotland and Havering Country Park in Essex. > However, while the trees are…
I hate when they do apples and oranges comparisons; it renders it almost useless: "There are an estimated half a million redwoods in the UK... fewer than 80,000 giant sequoias remaining in their native California range." generic redwoods in UK 500,000, specific giant sequoias in Calif 80,000. It does not say how many specific giant sequoias there are in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unless you can plant a very large number of trees which live to maturity and what, then? When plants die, their matter is decomposed by fungi and all their carbon is released back into the atmosphere (unless the dead plant matter is buried). The act of planting trees, in itself, is carbon neutral. Not good, not bad, just irrelevant to the presence of carbon: the carbon is still in the cycle of life within the biosp…
> The act of planting trees, in itself, is carbon neutral. Not good, not bad, just irrelevant to the presence of carbon: the carbon is still in the cycle of life within the biosphere. Isn't this a little like saying that humans in a confined space don't actually use up any of the oxygen, because it's still technically present in the CO2 they exhale? > For example, by cutting trees and burying their wood in sealed min…
Not the same as Sequoia wood, which is famously wonderful for construction!
>The tallest tree they found measured about 180 feet tall (54.87 meters)—giant compared with most native UK species, but dwarfed by their American counterparts. I wonder if that have anything to do with communicating vessels effect. The really big ones grow in the mountains, so I imagine it's easier to pump water that high if trees roots can "climb" the slope next to trunk.
Well, the oldest Sequoia in the UK are 160 years old. The article says they keep up their rapid growth throughout their potential lifespan of 3,000 years - so they are babies.
Is the timber they produce good quality for building with? I might like to invest in sequoia farms for carbon capture credits then timber later on.
Possibly the trees can be harvested more delicately today, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Average Per capita annual emissions for UK residents is 5.22 metric tons, according to Google.
So about 65 trees needed per resident, that might still be doable? edit: nope, of course being a large tree it also needs a lot of land.
Now re-forest the whole Scottish Highlands please...
Now re-forest the whole Scottish Highlands please...