Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Regenerate 400-Year-Old Frozen Plants

Several readers sent word of a group of University of Alberta researchers, who were exploring the edge of the Teardrop Glacier in northern Canada when they noticed a 'greenish tint' coming out from underneath the glacier. It turned out to be a collection of bryophytes, which likely flourished there the last time the land in that area was exposed to sunlight before the Little Ice Age. They collected samples of plants estimated to be 400 years old, and the researchers were able to get them to sprout new growths in the lab (abstract). "The glaciers in the region have been receding at rates that have sharply accelerated since 2004, at about 3-4m per year. ... Bryophytes are different from the land plants that we know best, in that they do not have vascular tissue that helps pump fluids around different parts of the organism. They can survive being completely desiccated in long Arctic winters, returning to growth in warmer times, but Dr La Farge was surprised by an emergence of bryophytes that had been buried under ice for so long. 'When we looked at them in detail and brought them to the lab, I could see some of the stems actually had new growth of green lateral branches, and that said to me that these guys are regenerating in the field, and that blew my mind.'"

17 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Monsanto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and Monsanto will patent those plants and sue anyone who has anything to do with them in 3.. 2.. 1..

    1. Re:Monsanto by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Patients have had their DNA patented in the US by companies/researchers, and denied the right to grant others access to it.

      Do you have a link to this? Did the patient grant this? Or was it patented w/o their permission (not that it makes too much of a difference)? I realize that the patent thing is really out of whack, particularly regarding DNA, software, drugs, etc. But if a company can patent your DNA and claim legal ownership w/o your permission; we have gone down the slippery slope in a rocket powered sled and broken through the ground at the bottom, passed through the crust, mantle and outer core and are floating in magma.

    2. Re:Monsanto by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Doesn't the mantle hold most of the magma? If we're in the inner core aren't we in solid metal?

      Nope. That's the outer core actually. The mantle is mostly rock with a few pockets of magma. Regardless, I was going for humor more so than geological accuracy.

  2. Global Warming is good for something. by Nyder · · Score: 2

    If the glacier didn't melt some, I'm sure they'd never have found those plants.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Master+Moose · · Score: 2

      While there may not be any imediate or obvious benefit for you (or anyone) at present. Every bit of knowledge and understanding that we can gather about ourselves, and our planet is beneficial.

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    2. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by 14erCleaner · · Score: 4, Funny

      If this were an X-Files episode, I'm sure they'd do something to us instead. Something horrible.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    3. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by lennier · · Score: 2

      what exactly does finding the plants do for us?

      Well, they're probably a great source of oil.

      And as long as you keep them chained up, avoid their whip-stings, and don't look at all those bright lights in the sky, I'm sure everything will be perfectly okay.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Global warming is a very good thing. It is a heck of a lot better than the alternative. We are coming out of a cold period. Cold is bad. Warm is good. During the warming periods is when biodiversity has exploded and life has bloomed. It is during the cold periods that we've gotten the worst of the great extinctions.

      The problem is that people are used to the very recent planetary temperature setting and built their cities down too close to the ocean. The oceans have gone up and down over time. Now they're rising again and the big cities which have too many people in them are going to suffer. This is unfortunate but that is how normal climate change operates.

      The real problem is not climate change. Climate change is normal. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. The real problem is toxic pollution that mankind is spewing into the environment, untested genomes that are being spilled into nature (GMOs) and all the waste. Global warming is just a distraction. Things like Earth Day, Carbon Credits and cloth shopping bags are just feel good measures that fail to address the real issues while letting people get a false sense that they have done something to 'save the world' when in reality they've done nothing.

      Focus.

    5. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Jagasian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know enough to be dangerous. Yes biodiversity was higher in the distance past when the Earth was warmer, but even more telling is what happened in the distant past when the Earth warmed at a very fast rate. The Permian–Triassic extinction was likely caused by an approximately 10 degree warming event that took place over tens of thousands of years. That lead to the extinction of almost all life on Earth. The current warming trend that the Earth is in is much faster than the trend associated with the Permian-Triassic extinction, and the obvious concern should be that this will lead to an even larger extinction event than the Permian-Triassic extinction. Plants can only migrate at a certain rate. Similarly for animals. Most won't be able to adapt, causing ecosystem failures. Maybe 99.9% of life will go extinct, who knows. Let's just dive right in!

      Random fact: You can easily spot the Permian-Triassic sediment deposits because there are two layers: (i) the Permian layer is loaded with fossils, and (ii) the next layer has only sand stone. Why? When almost all of the plants and animals die, all that is left is a giant dust bowl.

    6. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

      Plants can only migrate at a certain rate. Similarly for animals. Most won't be able to adapt, causing ecosystem failures.

      Indeed. This is why, from the start, some scientists argued that we should be coming up with mitigation strategies, since they did not believe that mankind would be able to get its collective act together and slow, let alone reverse, global warming/climate change.

      They were howled down by the majority of activists, who claimed - understandably - that such a strategy would just give a cop-out to both the denyers and world leaders. Still, despite some glacially-slow progress, nothing much has been done.

      Looks like we're going to have to give nature a hand to fix the mess we are busy creating...progress has been made, and continues, with drought and disease-resistant crops, for example.

    7. Re:Global Warming is good for something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd be impressed if you could find ANY "peer reviewed" "theory" backed up by any "evidence" for either side of this sub-topic.

      I have seen an episode of Horizon on this extinction event (which doesn't make me an expert, but hey) and there seems to be many theories out there as to the cause, but no definitive proof of much except that
      1. They KNOW that most of Siberia was a pool of Lava at this time (cause unknown, but suspected asteroid impact). They know this because they have found parts of Siberia in the strata pretty much everywhere they dig.
      2. They know that the temperature crept up 10F in the 10,000 years before the Siberian debris.
      3. They know there was an extinction at around the time of the Siberian debris.

      Every theory is unprovable and anyone that claims otherwise is in it for something other than the science.

  3. Misleading title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No action by the scientists led to the observed regeneration. In fact, they were shocked to discover it. The actual series of events was that plants were recovering and growing on their own, a science team noticed things looked greener than expected in recently-uncovered tundra, and upon further study confirmed that flora covered by glaciers for hundreds of years were sending out new growth.

    So it's not "Researchers regenerate ..."; it should be "Researchers notice 400-year-old frozen plants buried under glacier regenerating"

    Even the word regenerate isn't really correct. The real title should be "Researchers find frozen plants buried under glacier for 400 years still alive, sending out new growth."

  4. Old weed by Rixel · · Score: 4, Funny

    To bad they weren't found to be over 2000 years old. Could have called that the original BC bud.

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
  5. Can we attrib this to carbon pollution? by ozduo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or is the climate finally returning to normal? The answer depends on politics!

    --
    I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
  6. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by gznork26 · · Score: 2

    The Little Ice Age was what happened the last time the Gulf Stream stopped. It was the reason why some artists had painted ordinary-looking scenes of people out on the ice of their lake -- something that had not happened before in those places. The North Atlantic gyre can be stopped by the addition of too much fresh water from melting ice, because it is the difference in salinity that drives the currents and the upwelling from the depths. We live on a planet with a lot of interconnected systems that rely on one another to keep the cycles going. A small change can have large effects.

  7. And when it finishes regenerating... by TWX · · Score: 2

    ...it'll call out, "Feeeed me, Seeeymour!"

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  8. Re:This is where I get confused about AGW. by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

    "I realize maybe we could argue about the rate of change, but didn't the previous ice ages ... kinda ... supposedly happen rather quickly, too?"

    This isn't something you can simply write off with "I suppose we could...". There are different scales of quickly. Slow changes in the past have seen changes of a few degrees over many millions of years, some of the faster events have seen changes of a few degrees over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

    We're seeing a few degrees change over hundreds of years. That's a problem and something largely unprecedented in Earth's history without there being an obvious outside factor such as a massive meteor impact or similar. We'd know about it already if one of those were the cause, in fact no, we probably wouldn't know about it because we'd all be dead already. You can see similar events in periods of high volcanic activity and so forth also, or through noticeable solar changes but the problem is we can't find any of these that correlate with the issue either.

    So therein lies the problem, the only thing we can find that correlates with the problem is us. Maybe something else is to blame and we don't know what yet, but realistically, given the rate of change, history tells us that whatever causes this much change isn't hard to find, and again, the only easy to find possibility is once more, us.

    For this kind of change you need a global event, and what in the world at the moment is the only thing we can see producing measurable releases of gases altering the consistency of the atmosphere which is demonstrably a cause of increase temperature? There are no large chains of volcanos, there are no meteor impacts, the only thing we can find is is us.