131–140 of 147 posts
The introduction of non-native tree species is not without its own controversies as these may support very different biodiversity landscapes. In central Europe there is, e.g., a debate about the role and future of the Douglas fir, which was also introduced from North America centuries ago: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.84458...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General Sherman is 2200 years old for example. Which is pretty incredible
Crazy to think that this thing was just sitting there, two centuries old, when Jesus was doing stuff in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(pine_tree)
Human lifespans are a flash in the pan compared to some organisms.
Sadly one of those flashes in the pan cut down the tree that was older than Methuselah (at the time, Methuselah is now older).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General Sherman is 2200 years old for example. Which is pretty incredible
Crazy to think that this thing was just sitting there, two centuries old, when Jesus was doing stuff in the Middle East.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do these redwoods in Spain also reproduce naturally?
That would depend much more on cattle and lawnmowers than on fires. But it does not matter, because we don't need to wait for the natural spreading of the seeds. We can plant any tree that we need, were we need it. And we, for sure, will need a lot in the near future. After all, we put any road that we need where we need it. It was not an obstacle for the last 200 years, so all is needed is the political will to do t…
"There are an estimated half a million -->redwoods giant sequoias (arrows mine) Giant Sequoias ( Sequoiadendron giganteum ) and Coast Redwoods ( Sequoia sempervirens ) are two different trees! Note: It seems that my California nomenclature uses "Redwood" to refer specifically to Coast Redwoods, whereas other regions use "Redwood" to refer to all 3 species of Sequoioideae (Coast Redwood, Giant Sequoia, and Dawn Redwoo…
Is there a handy guide to tell them apart? I live in south Texas and we have a redwood tree in our backyard, which was planted by our previous owner when he moved here from California. I have no idea which type of redwood it is. It is not Texas redwood, though.
The introduction of non-native tree species is not without its own controversies as these may support very different biodiversity landscapes. In central Europe there is, e.g., a debate about the role and future of the Douglas fir, which was also introduced from North America centuries ago: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.84458...
It's the UK, it's fine, it's not like its going to suddenly import hundreds of green tropical parakeets or anything...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would depend much more on cattle and lawnmowers than on fires. But it does not matter, because we don't need to wait for the natural spreading of the seeds. We can plant any tree that we need, were we need it. And we, for sure, will need a lot in the near future. After all, we put any road that we need where we need it. It was not an obstacle for the last 200 years, so all is needed is the political will to do t…
Well, there used to be 6 trillion trees on earth and today there are only 3 trillion left. Planting 3 trillion trees manually is certainly a lot more work then allowing them to reproduce exponentially.
The sooner 8 trillion people start planting 3 trillion trees, the better. My quote is filled. Your turn.
Related question I've always had: does anyone know why trees on the west coast of the US and Canada grow so tall? You'll find the tallest species of fir (douglas fir or if you're being pedantic the grand fir), pine (sugar pine), hemlock (western hemlock) and cedar (western red cedar) as well as the redwood species. Other places with similar climate grow tall trees but nearly so high. Is it something about the climate…
There's a couple factors. A big one is that the North American Pacific coast was just one the last places to get significant settlement, so we didn't cut down all the big trees like we did elsewhere. Appalachia, for instance, used to have its share of giant trees. But those trees are still dwarfed by the sequoias. The West Coast's wet-dry spells lead to more forest fires, presenting another evolutionary pressure on t…
We've got two recent studies from around here (Santa Cruz mountains) showing that some of our coast redwoods get as much as 30% of their total water from fog. Perhaps relevant to these baby forests in the UK, I suspect that permanently depriving a younger coast redwood of the consistent fog would primarily compromise its photosynthesizing power limiting food production and stunting its growth.
One other thing I've been thinking about but have no data for is a 30% reduction in water would likely also compromise the secondary metabolism that produces tannin and certain resins that can act as a sort of adhesive among fibrous cells and serve to reinforce the tree's wood from fracturing under wind stress or hits from falling neighbors. One of the redwood's keys to longevity is the wood's structure and makeup, both of which are influenced by those that secondary metabolism.
Depriving an established tree of 30% of its total water consumption would likely lead to immediate crown thinning and might cause enough hydraulic system failure to result in something like apical tip die-back. That would not only lead to a serious loss in growth capability for all but those already near the height limits because they can pack on more total mass adding height and girth than girth alone.
Loss of the terminal bud would also open the tip to rot which could eventually hollow out much of the tree. This is not uncommon among mature coast redwoods and the numbers of these hollow giants we find belie the true frequency as the hollowing weakens some of them enough so that wind or fire can more easily take them out. (Note: if you're not familiar with trees, don't worry. they are not made unhappy by the the hollowing. they live on their outsides and the insides are long dead.)
We're seeing the die back here on the east side of the range where the trees redwoods that survived along valleys and creeks down into the foothills and even some into the flats have all lost the top 10% or so most likely from the droughts of the last 50 years. The upper parts of the eastern side and most of the west get the coastal fog to water them and the ones down lower on the east side do not in times of drought and we've had 20 of the last 50 years in moderate or severe drought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or about one air passenger trip to Europe. ("just plant trees" is not a viable solution to climate change unless you can plant a very large number of trees which live to maturity)
> 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…
Redwoods can give us a few thousand years to sort that out before they decompose.
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.
looks like the fastest growing tree(s) are bamboo:
The world record for the fastest growing plant belongs to certain species of the 45 genera of bamboo, which have been found to grow at up to 91 cm (35 in) per day or at a rate of 0.00003 km/h (0.00002 mph).
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-g...