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

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#51

Post by zdf »

simplecomplex wrote: post #15
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…

Are any of those issues comparable to cutting all the trees down? Fires and beatles and dead wood are natural.

For the beetles in particular, they're only natural inasmuch as logging is natural. The beetles are able to survive because of human activity. Logging is just as natural, because it's done by humans, which are a natural species.

We have to have some common sense boundaries on what is or is not natural for the term to have any usefulness in environmental discussions. In this case, the beetles are unnatural and invasive. Moreover, they're harmful in that they kill trees more quickly than the forest is equipped to handle.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#53

Post by kijin »

blauditore wrote: post #46
fredley wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture. Surely it's not size but speed of growth that matters? Wouldn't forests of Leylandii (a fast-growing conifer that can grow as fast as 1m/year) felled and resowed every few years/decades capture more carbon?

I guess it matters a lot what happens to the grown out wood as well. If it's burned after cutting it down, you're back to zero for that particular tree. So assuming you're not storing large amounts of cut-down wood, the relevant metric is amount of bound carbon per surface area, and I think larger trees might have a higher density (in the long run) than smaller ones.

Coastal redwood lives for a looong time, up to 3000 years. All that carbon is eventually going to go back to the atmosphere one way or another, but the time scale looks long enough to keep some carbon safely sequestered until after we've figured out how to live in harmony with our planet -- assuming we don't manage to kill all the trees in the meantime.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#54

Post by ttsda »

matco11 wrote: post #28

“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 co…

This usage of the word "cloning" is widespread in the horticultural community, and it's indeed used by your average garden as well.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#55

Post by lostapathy »

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.

Part of the reason we see such extremes in forests now is how we treated them in the past (and still do, in terms of putting out small fires that should clear fuel without causing total destruction). Why not provide some management now to help them moderate again?

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#56

Post by josefresco »

blux wrote: post #22
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.

I think the problem is not just lack of dead tree removal but rather the combination of fire suppression AND lack of dead tree removal. Also of course, the encroachment into the forest by development / housing. A "natural, thriving forest" has regular fires but that isn't compatible with human housing / development.

I'm no expert, just what I've gathered from paying attention to the news.

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#58

Post by pault »

bakul wrote: post #33
matco11 wrote: post #28

“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 co…

I believe the original meaning of cloning was indeed to grow a plant or a tree from a cutting and such plants are identical to the original — this term is still used in gardening.

Clone is from the Greek klōn, for "twig".

Re: Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps

#59

Post by pault »

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.

Large, devastating fires can be prevented by clearing out fuel and doing smaller controlled burns.
Post reply on HN