Slashdot Mirror


Arborists Are Bringing the 'Dinosaur of Trees' Back To Life (qz.com)

Arborists are cloning saplings from the stumps of the world's largest, strongest, and longest-lived trees -- felled for timber more than a century ago -- to create redwood "super groves" that can help fight climate change. "Using saplings made from the basal sprouts of these super trees to plant new groves in temperate countries around the world means the growths have a better chance than most to become giants themselves," reports Quartz. "Their ancestors grew up to 400 ft (122 m) tall and to 35 ft in diameter, after all, larger than the largest living redwood today, a giant sequoia in California's Sequoia National Park." From the report: Already, super saplings from the project are thriving in groves in Canada, England, Wales, France, New Zealand, and Australia. None of these locales are places where coastal redwoods grow naturally, but they all have cool temperatures and sufficient fog for the redwoods, which drink moisture from the air in summer rather than relying on rain. [David Milarch, founder of the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive, a U.S. nonprofit that propagates the world's largest trees] calls this "assisted migration." Last month, his organization planted another such grove in the Presidio in San Francisco, California. The park lies along the U.S. west's redwood corridor, which runs from Oregon to California, home to the stumps the saplings were cloned from. But 95% of giant growths there were cut long ago. Many of the redwoods along the corridor now are young trees. Milarch notes that as the local climate is getting hotter and less foggy, it's no longer as conducive to producing the mega growths of yore. Now, 75 saplings created from the basal sprouts of the most rugged and massive ancient tree stumps of the coastal region will grow in the Presidio. They may eventually become the hardiest and tallest trees around, if their ancestors are any indication.

148 comments

  1. Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Funny

    on the rampage in New York. I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart (or stem).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by fustakrakich · · Score: 1
      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dinosaur of Trees?

      Jurassic Bark!

    3. Re: Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did this with pond scum a while back. Apparently it was very successful

    4. Re: Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young Horse Teeth is what we call 'er in Manhattan.

    5. Re: Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I can draw a couple of conclusions right away: it is easy to tell who is and who is not good at growing trees and that there are some species that we might not miss if climate change extincted them

    6. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Sounds Ent-ertaining.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re: Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in Manhattan for the first time a few months ago. Quite the town. But the streets are falling apart. We were there when the underground pipe exploded sending asbestos bits everywhere. What would you do if all the tourist money stopped? How could the regular people possibly pay for that city? Are there enough billionaires for your 'Young Horse Teeth' to steal from for her Utopia? Good Luck to all those layabouts waiting for their free money; it will run out about Day 10. You'll have to learn to speak Venezuelan.

    8. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      *Richard Attenborough voice*

      Welcome...to Jurassic Gardens.

      (Insert John Williams score here)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re: Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bred raptor plants?

    10. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      Very well played.
      Wish I had mod points.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    11. Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part is they can keep the bit where the botanist calls the attractions "aggressive living things that will defend themselves".

  2. What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from just harvesting them all again for short term profit, that which rules tiny little human brains?

    1. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your insightful slashdot commentary, for one

    2. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      They have a lifespan of 500-1000 years and can get as old as 3,000+ years in some cases, so my suggestion is we sit back and wait to see if it happens again.

    3. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      from just harvesting them all again for short term profit, that which rules tiny little human brains?

      Not a damn thing. Nominally park rangers discourage that with slight risk of fines and prison, but not right now. I've cut enough lumber in the past few weekends to make a hundred conference tables. It should keep me busy through retirement and beyond. Nice to not have job killing regulations keeping me from harvesting off the public lands.

    4. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you plant any trees to eventually replace the ones you cut down for your mini IKEA? No? F**k off parasite.

    5. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice! I have a line of Joshua tree pens coming that would look lovely laying on a redwood table. We should talk.

    6. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid they won't make it past 50. They'll be commercially farmed as hardwoods long before they reach full maturity.

    7. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Rob+Lister · · Score: 3, Informative

      A redwood is a softwood, not a hardwood. But I get your overly cynical point.

    8. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technicality it is a hardwood, because it has small leaves. Softwood has broad leaves

    9. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the uninformed always think that redwood trees and sequoia trees are one and the same? Almost completely different, one is taller and one is more massive.
      https://www.gardenguides.com/122104-differences-between-redwoods-sequoia-trees.html

    10. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for the ones just planted in the US, maybe the fact that there is no commercial lumber activity allowed on the Presidio. Also the fact that commercial lumber operations no longer just go out, pick a mountain and cut all the trees down. Lumber operations are controlled. And it's quite easy to designate these groves as off limits to cutting. Now that's not going to stop the random idiots from cutting a tree or two for firewood, but it's certainly not going to be a for profit business.

    11. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!!!

      That joke flew right over your head.

    12. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I see your point. I was thinking of its strength and density, which is unusually high for a "softwood", and it's more durable than many woods.

    13. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's wrong

      gymnosperms are caled hardwoods
      angiosperms are called softwoods

      pines and redwoods are softwoods
      oaks and balsa are hardwoods

      internally, softwods and hardwoods have different mechanisms for water transport

    14. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      Not so much. Its real value is rot resistance; rough outdoor furniture, decking, fencing and such. Honestly, it is no better than pressure treated pine and costs a heck of a lot more. Easy to work, though, if you don't mind the occasional tear-outs.

    15. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The primary value in cutting down the original trees was their size. It will take these trees centuries to reach similar size.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    16. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Technicality it is a hardwood, because it has small leaves. Softwood has broad leaves

      You got that the wrong way round. This botanical definition does not necessarily align with physically hard and soft; botanically, balsa is a hardwood.

    17. Re:What would stop the greedy morons by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      great point

    18. Re: What would stop the greedy morons by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      You can make a lot of office paper from one of those things.

  3. More forests are good. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The particular trees are less important.

    1. Re:More forests are good. by xlsior · · Score: 2

      Less important, but not unimportant: Thanks to their huge size & height, a square mile of mature redwood forest would be capable of sequestering a LOT more carbon than a square mile of any other type of forest..

      (although counting biomass-per-year, rapid growing, shorter lived tree like poplars wouldn't be bad in the short term either)

    2. Re:More forests are good. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Redwoods ARE fast-growing trees, like many conifers. And you can readily "sequester" the carbon in decks, fences, conference tables, etc. And then grow more...

    3. Re: More forests are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right. Something to consider before planting non-native trees and potentially destabilizing the local ecology. But sure, go ahead plant tall, fast-growing redwoods that will take over the local tree canopy within a matter of years. What could go wrong?

    4. Re: More forests are good. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      And we all know that stability is the ultimate goal. Life should never have been allowed to start on Earth, polluting the pristine lifeless environment.

      Most environmentalists are fools or worse.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Morons opining about what's important without a specific clue or credential to their name is less important.

    1. Re:Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Yes, we know, they are saving the world.

      Carry on.

    2. Re:Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Thanks for the layman's perspective on something you know nothing about though. It's important that you personally approve. Someone was bound to ask eventually, I'm sure of it. They just forgot somehow.)

      Don't they know who you are, the self-appointed expert on this topic? Say no more, you've pontificated all we need to know already. Brevity is wit, just shut the fuck up and we'll assume you're a genius thus.

      Certainly more so than now, Christ on a fiberglass sailboat.

    3. Re:Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. It's 'anonymous coward', not anonymous incredibly cowardly prick. Get the role right.

      You're wrong, too, but even non-assholes are wrong, now and then.

    4. Re: Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hereâ(TM)s your diaper

    5. Re: Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahahahaha excellent language skills.

    6. Re: Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, a SCIENTIST is doing something so we KNOW they must be smart and right!!!!

      Wowowowowowow!!! Let me say that again!! A SCIENTIST!!!!! With credentials!!!!!

      Golly!

    7. Re: Experts performing scientific feats are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust the Anonymous Coward about the importance of such things.

  5. Obligatory by marcle · · Score: 1

    See one redwood, you've seen 'em all.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read one moron's thoughts, ditto.

    2. Re:Obligatory by marcle · · Score: 1

      Um, that was a quote from Ronald Reagan.

    3. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QED. Hey waddaya know.

    4. Re: Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh baby lick my redwood. Oh is that a degree in your wall? Is that a certificate of achievement? Oh you are so hot. Are those your hot wheels cars? Oh Iâ(TM)m so hot. Oh oh oh oh yes yes yes yes

    5. Re:Obligatory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      False. He actually referenced "a hundred thousand acres or so of trees". If you're going to attribute a quote, you need to get it right.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  6. Barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we plant a few million of them along our southern border?

    1. Re:Barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nice gesture, but there's probably not enough moisture. They'd work along the northern border better, but there they'd provide cover for the 7 times as many terrorism suspects we catch there now, compared to the southern border. So probably for "security" reasons we should just shut down the TSA and the Federal immigration hotline and all the certs that run our GSA websites, that oughta be secure at least until President Ivanka builds her "30 meter Mexican Border Mall"

    2. Re:Barrier? by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      They'd work along the northern border better

      Perhaps we could plant them along the California-Oregon border. And just pull our lines back to something a bit more defensible.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in as much as trees prevent illegal immigration... I say it sure is a better idea than anything coming out of the treason administration. Let's do it.

    4. Re: Barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that you say that. Go look up Azatlan.

      For the ignorant it is the idea that California belongs to Mexico and they are going to take it back By Any Means Necessary.

      If you ever wonder what you enemies are thinking and actively working on you should just listen to what they say. Mexicans want California, Muslims want the world. South African blacks want to genocide South African whites. A lot of people want to genocide Jews. Marxists will use any means necessary to gain control of the world.

      And so on. Just listen to what they say and believe them.

    5. Re: Barrier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your enemies are books, child.

  7. There is unrest in the forest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is trouble with the trees.

    1. Re:There is unrest in the forest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooom hoooooom hommm.. what .. sort of ... trouble .. Hooom hoom...

    2. Re:There is unrest in the forest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is trouble with the trees.

      The Trees - Rush

  8. lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Informative

    To de-mystify:

    Scientists are planting samples of giant Californian Redwood Trees, around the world in appropriate climates.

    Global warming means California is no longer the best environment for them, so they are hand picking locations where it is the best environment.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean you actually RTFA?

      What a sapling!

    2. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They said "dinosaur" just to get everyone's attention, but this is more like a selective breeding of an existing species, and transplanting into alien habitats, which may or may not result in more big trees.

        With most large species, the same thing that makes them big also makes them specialists. And they tend to be most prone to dying off with slight changes, because the environment changes faster than they can evolve - a problem simple and small organisms don't have. There's no particularly good reason to think that just because these trees grew old and huge under ideal conditions that they are any better at tolerating less-good conditions (like getting transplanted 12,000 miles away in a different hemisphere).

            We'll see, I guess, in about 2000 years...

    3. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      They said dinosaur, climate change, clone, "super grove", "super trees," and probably giant redwoods to get everyone's intention.

      It's hard to know what these people are actually trying to accomplish. The trees didn't die out because of climate change, their population was reduced because of logging, and there are lots of them growing now (mostly not as big, though). All up and down the coast of California, and even in the Sierra's, there are plenty of places for these trees to grow, and where they are growing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's almost as if the article, and summary, where posted just to get attention to their program, and that somehow, the otherwise unerring bullshit detection instincts of the typical Slahsdot editor got, on this one rare occasion, fooled.

    5. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      These aren't really scientists, mostly just a bunch of tree-huggers. And the surviving Coast Redwoods are doing fine along the coast of Northern California (which is still the best locale for them). They're endangered because most of the old growth was harvested a century ago and California doesn't manage the existing stands very well, but new ones continue to grow there anyway.

    6. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Dawn Redwood would be more deserving of the "dinosaur" moniker.

    7. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it's still has the best environment which is shrinking

      they always did grow in relatively narrow band with the proper conditions.

      I don't see them faring well anywhere else. the big trees in california are 2000 - 3000 years old, these transplants might do okay for the first century or six....

    8. Re: lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Dawn Redwood the married name of Buffy's sister?

    9. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by skam240 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not saying you're wrong but redwoods do have an impressive trait or two beyond height. The same bark that requires exposure to moist air also makes them mostly fire retardant. At least in the context of the type of fire present in wild fires.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    10. Re: lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, lots of button-pushing words to get attention.

      Whereas everybody knows the real "dinosaur of trees" is the Wollemi Pine.

    11. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They said "dinosaur" just to get everyone's attention, but this is more like a selective breeding of an existing species,

      God damn it.

      I had my Ian Malcolm lines all set up, "this wasn't some tree killed by deforestation"... Well fuck me, it was.

      Serious note though... As someone who was born in Australia the flagrant introduction of species into different environments can be devastating to the local wildlife. I know the idea is to save the Sequoias which are endangered, but we need to be careful that introducing them to foreign habitats isn't done at the detriment to that habitat (destroying the habitat may also be detrimental to the species your introducing as well).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but It takes 2000 years to grow to full height. I don't think it's that much of a risk compared to rabbits or cane toads. Plus, it's probably not going to work in any case, they evolved to work in a very specific, rare (bordering on unique), habitat, and most of Australia is *utterly* incompatible. I don't see much danger of being overrun.

            If it was paleozoic glossopteris, then it would be more of a concern. They are about at close to managing that as they are T. Rex. or trilobites.

    13. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The more the merrier, I say. Redwoods are cool. They look like something from fantasy. I'd like to see them all over. I was just 5 when my family went west for a vacation (this was the 1960s) and visited CA, CO, AZ, and UT.. I remember.. just barely.. the giant redwood you could drive through, it was one of those things that left an indelible impression from so long ago.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you have to be careful introducing non-native species elsewhere. Apparently the Sitka Spruce was imported to Norway because it's so fast-growing and valuable, but is now considered an invasive species. I also think giant redwoods are cool, but if they take hold, it's easy to see how they could dominate the ecosystem.

  9. This is cool and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But doesn't do shit for climate change.
    I like having giant trees again, even though I will be dead long before they reach max size.
    But these things grow slowly and are not the best at carbon capture.
    Plant some bamboo or some other fast growing tree if you want that.

    1. Re:This is cool and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bamboo isn't going to do it either. Slow-growing would be fine if after some period of time it was left alone for the entirety of, it would be significantly reducing the insulating gasses more than are put out there. Not happening.

      Electric or bust. Renewables or dead planet.

    2. Re:This is cool and all by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just absorbing carbon, but also sequestering it. These will live quite a long time and mostly just need to be left alone to do their thing.

      If these guys want to try tackle the problem this way, may as well let them. If you've got other ideas or a different approach, then you should be free to do that. Sure this isn't going to magically solve everything overnight, but it's better than just sitting around expecting someone else to do something. It's also kind of cool in its own right, so who cares if you think they have silly motives.

    3. Re:This is cool and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so who cares if you think they have silly motives"

      Well, in any case, it's less gratuitously complex than the plan to clone woolly mammoths to stamp on tundra more effectively and thereby fix global warming...

      But in answer to you question, in both cases, the question "is this genetic engineering being thoroughly vetted as an effective use of taxpayer money (direct or indirect)", and based on the answer to that, I care. Because there are very simple, very cost-effective immediate needs that take precedence over this gyrating elephant of left-sciencey nonsense.

    4. Re:This is cool and all by Sique · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's not genetic engineering. It's just taking saplings from stubs. When you cut down the tree, the roots are still alive, and new saplings will grow from them, being clones from the tree that was cut down.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:This is cool and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But doesn't do shit for climate change.
      I like having giant trees again, even though I will be dead long before they reach max size.
      But these things grow slowly and are not the best at carbon capture.
      Plant some bamboo or some other fast growing tree if you want that.

      And when the bamboo dies? All that carbon dioxide is released again.
      Or are you planning on digging giant graves for those trees that have died?
      Better do that by hand if you don't want to burn fuel that releases more carbon dioxide in the process.

  10. Invasive Species by cyocum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "None of these locales are places where coastal redwoods grow naturally...". Does that not make them imported invasive species and should be removed immediately from those areas?

    1. Re: Invasive Species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But your bitchy pithiness is important, certainly more than scientifically bringing back extinct trees. Just ask you, or don't, you'll tell us all about it either way, you just did.

    2. Re: Invasive Species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Worshiping science to bring back trees." That have only been "gone" for a century, not 65 million years... it's not really the same thing as dinosaurs, derp. But you didn't think, so I'll give you time to do that now. Welcome!

    3. Re:Invasive Species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's an introduced species. A species is only considered invasive if it spreads at an uncontrollable rate and causes harm to the local ecosystem.

      I mean, these trees grow so slowly that by the time the forest spreads the human societies that planted them will no longer be around. The ecosystem will adapt just fine.

    4. Re:Invasive Species by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      No, because they are inherently not "invasive species" nor should the be "removed immediately" because they're being put there deliberately.

      You know, some conscious thought is required when stringing together words that you've heard before.

    5. Re:Invasive Species by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      "A species is only considered invasive if it spreads at an uncontrollable rate and causes harm to the local ecosystem."

      Unfortunately, you generally don't find that part out until later. I suspect (i.e., without proof) that most invasive species were introduced at one time.

  11. Hardiest? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    They may eventually become the hardiest and tallest trees around, if their ancestors are any indication.

    Tallest, yes, but hardy implies that they can endure difficult conditions. If they struggle to endure reduced fog in their native habitat this suggests that they are not particularly hardy.

    1. Re: Hardiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or useful for polluting and raping the earth?

    2. Re: Hardiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hee hee. I can see this as part of the office.
      Michael: hey, Ann told me we should work in our consciences sometime. Whaddaya think? Should we?
      Dwight: Iâ(TM)d rather rape the earth
      Michael: OK, whatever you think!

    3. Re: Hardiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but they can hear other plants pooping, especially the ones that have a combo mouth/shitter

    4. Re:Hardiest? by cb88 · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder if cutting most of them down has been a large driver of the change in climate of the area... similar to how rainforests when cut down are nothing like what they were before when there was canopy...

    5. Re:Hardiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If they struggle to endure reduced fog in their native habitat this suggests that they are not particularly hardy. " No, rather what you just opined suggests you're an idiot, not someone who knows what a biological niche is.

      Hardiness incorporates a lot of variables but I guarantee if you Roger don't get enough water, you will be dust in hours. Very few species can survive dessication including otherwise hardy ones. It weakens everything.

  12. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because redwoods actually require forest fires to properly open their pine cones. Without that heating the majority of the seeds will never properly germinate or be released from the cones, causing them to be eaten, decomposed, or be outcompeted long before they can become a threat to local flora.

    Having said that, my real question is: 'Why aren't they selling cuttings of these in their store for local restoration in central/eastern California. You know, the NATURAL RANGE for Redwoods/Giant Sequoias? Personally I've got a coast redwood growing at home, as do the few people up in the foothills with their own redwoods. While not IMPOSSIBLE to find, the supply of giant sequoia and sierra redwood varieties are not the easiest to find. Coast redwoods, while seeds from the largest specimens might be difficult, are readily available in most nurseries around the state, and are very common in certain cities across the state.

    1. Re:No. by Sique · · Score: 2
      As TFA explained:

      Milarch notes that as the local climate is getting hotter and less foggy, it's no longer as conducive to producing the mega growths of yore.

      So their natural habitat is no longer the way it was. The saplings will not grow that easily where their ancestor stood of which they are clones.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giant Sequoias, yes, they need fire for the cones to open. Redwoods don't.

      And they're not invasive species quite along the lines of Himalayan blackberry, English Ivy, Kudzu, Scotch broom, cottonwoods and poplars, etc. are.
      Unless you're thinking more in geologic time frames.

    3. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the vast majority of their seeds are generally nonfertile anyway and you can literally buy Redwood seedlings anyway.

  13. USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by js290 · · Score: 1

    home to the tallest trees... Kaure, Alerce, Sequoia/Redwood, Cedars of Lebanon... all chopped down by agriculturalists https://youtu.be/kb_t-sVVzF0?t...

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re: USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touchy agriculturalists who slip into a lisp when agitated

    2. Re: USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arent they touchy though? They really get upset if you donâ(TM)t treat them like the worlds foremost experts at everything

    3. Re: USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mayne they just need to poop

    4. Re:USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      By "agriculturalist", you mean "the people who make it possible to provide for the human population", right?

    5. Re: USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind if I push in your stool?

    6. Re:USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kaure". Did you mean Kauri?

    7. Re:USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate by js290 · · Score: 1
      We all pick our poison...

      "Every culture that has depended on annual plants for their staple food crops has collapsed." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1ck0tnM

      Clash of cultures HG vs agriculture "Sitting Bull and his people had no use for these laws... There was nothing the US govt or agriculture could offer them. They were really the freest people in the world... so [US govt] exterminated them." http://bit.ly/1pAIwrD

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  14. Wash Rinse Repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High hopes.

    Big ambitions.

    Clueless media hyperbole...

    Dinosaurs will roam the Earth again before there are redwood "super groves" that can help fight climate change.

  15. Um..something isn't right. by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They take 3-4k years to grow, and from what I've seen of sequoia trees, they have few branches and few needles to photosynthesize CO2. Surely smaller. faster growing, more leaf/needle sprouting plants such as bamboo would be faster at sucking up CO2.

    It's nice that someone is planning for after we're gone...

    1. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this is about political underpants color, good point. Hey giant trees of the world, if you're thinking you're gonna fall down... try to fall on that idiot. Vayo condimentos motherfucker, so long useless tits.

    2. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bamboo is invasive, destructive, to places where it doesn't belong. It ruins the soil and the shoots make it impossible to walk barefoot anywhere they are. A noxious weed like kudzu. Please don't plant it except in very controlled areas.

    3. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To sequester you must bury the wood - if it stays out in the environment it will eventually oxidise releasing CO2. You must 'make coal' out of the CO2 and don't dig it up this time around.

    4. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I think you're off by a bit there. Redwoods grow a few feet per year, some varieties as much as six feet. It may take 100+ years to grow a 400 foot tall redwood. It's more likely these will grow for less than 100 years and top out at 90 feet, which is what typically happens when redwoods are cultivated.

      To create a biological carbon sink, you need plants that will live for a long time and resist decay. Bamboo grows fast, but sequesters carbon for a decade or two. Trees like redwoods sequester carbon for many centuries. The result is that boreal forests (including redwoods) capture much more carbon than other ecosystems.

    5. Re:Um..something isn't right. by careysub · · Score: 2

      They take 3-4k years to grow,

      These are the coast redwoods. Their maximum lifespan is about 2000 years, and most don't make it past 800. They tend to topple in storms around that time, like the Dyerville Giant that toppled in 1991, which is when they discovered it had been the world's tallest tree. It was 1600 years old though.

      Several people are feigning horror that cuttings propagated from the largest trees the world has ever known (as far we can tell) are being grown outside of their recent natural range as if propagating any plant in a (currently) foreign location inevitably makes it a threatening weed. As climates change plant ranges naturally change, and they start growing places they couldn't before, and stop growing where they were once found. Nothing inherently dangerous in helping plants move to new, more suitable locations.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The article, to me at least, seemed to be a little fuzzy about whether it was discussing giant redwoods vs coast redwoods. Giant redwoods do not actually grow in the coastal fog zone, so it was kind of confusing. Giant redwoods tend to be found in the Sierra Foothills. They are the most massive trees in the world, and live potentially for a few millennia.

      But coast redwoods actually grow taller than giant redwoods. They grow pretty fast and live for hundreds of years (still not too shabby). This is exactly what you need. The carbon they fix remains locked up in the wood of the tree for centuries. I am sure the giant redwoods are also good for this. But I am not sure if they grow as fast as coast redwoods. For your information, the needles on large redwoods are high up in the air above your head. But they are there. Tall as they are, there is not much use in producing needles low down on the trunk under closed canopy. Redwood forest with closed canopy intercepts most of the sunlight, leaving a pretty dark shady feeling underneath.

      When the canopy is not closed, they have branches and green needles right down to ground level.

      Source: I live among coastal redwoods.

    7. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assholes like you wil try to find a downside to everything. What can be possibly be wrong about planting trees in their natural habitat?

    8. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      nicely put.

    9. Re:Um..something isn't right. by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      Which is why we really need more temperate swamps, not forests.

      That said, wood --> building materials and wood --> carbon neutral energy are decent 'second best' choices.

    10. Re:Um..something isn't right. by Shark · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair to that specific asshole, the article specifically states that it's outside their natural habitat.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    11. Re:Um..something isn't right. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Salmon and other species are also being moved to places that will eventually be like their original locations. Sometimes you have to realize that change happens, and adapt.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    12. Re:Um..something isn't right. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The wood used to build furniture and houses also contains sequestered carbon. Unlike buried wood, houses and furniture increase human wealth and comfort.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  16. Obligatory pun by TimMD909 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jurassic Bark.

    1. Re: Obligatory pun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory puts are the best. Bye!

  17. Planting trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just as God and Freeman Dyson intended.

  18. Kill looters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we agree that the assholes using the government shutdown as an opportunity to illegally fell Joshua trees should be shot on sight?

    1. Re:Kill looters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to paint my name on half dome with a drone.

  19. It's a solid correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another joke corrected! That's 2 or 3 out of /N^45 This is a great use of your time, I honestly have a lot more respect for you correcting Reagan quotes than lying about the environment or black people or Islam.

    In before "CITATION NEEDED" -just click the name to see the comment history, pages and days and years of it if you remember back that far anymore lol.

    1. Re:It's a solid correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to side with LynnwoodRooster's pedantry in this case.
      If we're going to attribute a quote to a person, then it should be something that person actually said, both in using the actual words said, and also not paraphrased to have a meaning other than the original meaning in the context of the original speech.

      This is actually a big deal and a far worse sin than grammatical/spelling errors. Over my lifespan I've seen the practice of misquoting to make someone look bad (or worse than they are) getting much worse in recent years. It's especially odd because it's so easy to check now that everything gets recorded, but these misquotes get propagated more than the original speech.

  20. Teraforming V1.01 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, the intent of these biostitutes is to shift the planets climate to create tropical beach front properties around Greenland. This will dwarf the Alaskan and Louisiana land purchases by magnitudes. Teraforming V1.0 Mars!

  21. Slashdot really is dead - Netcraft confirms it by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    There's 71 comments so far and not one Ian Malcolm quote...

    1. Life uh.... finds a way.

    2. Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  22. Bad Forest Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Planting huge forests with only one kind of softwood pine trees is a major fire hazard. More of these fire resistant trees (there are many other species that don't burn easily) are needed to make natural fire breaks.

  23. warmer climate means more fog, no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25 years in San Francisco's Sunset district it is clear the hotter it is inland the foggier it is at the coast.
    Seems like the author may have the fog thing backwards?

  24. Assisted invasion of species by dorzak · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this make the trees invasive species? Even if it is assisted.

    1. Re:Assisted invasion of species by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      This is completely true. Also, redwoods and aother large trees tend to hinder the ecology under them. The remaining redwood forests are very quiet and inactive in the shade of the trees.

    2. Re:Assisted invasion of species by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Planting a tree specifically for the benefit received does not constitute doing harm.

      Introducing a non-native species does not automatically make it invasive.

    3. Re:Assisted invasion of species by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Given that originally they were present in many other locations, it's more like reintroducing a species

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  25. Meanwhile in Ireland., very few planted.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just started planting, but only tree of them...... ...

  26. Nice by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Now we only have to wait for 4000 years to see if it worked.

    1. Re:Nice by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Now we only have to wait for 4000 years to see if it worked.

      Just use the banana ray from The Orville on it.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  27. oh no... 'Climate change'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More global warming alarmism bollocks from 'Climatedot'. What a joke this website has become.

    www.climatedepot.com
    www.wattsupwiththat.com

  28. Climate engineering vs. Border Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it totally hilarious the article is exists. So, let's sum up a comparison to help put this into perspective; shall we?

    We are unable to secure a border between two countries.
    We are able to modify the atmosphere of an entire planet.

    Sounds like a pseudo scientist "in the woodpile", LOL!!!

  29. Re: Jurassic Bark by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    Yeah I've seen this movie before. Character growth was very slow, and the acting was wooden.

  30. Tree Fort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine the awesome tree fort you could make in one of these though?

    "OK Billy, we've planted the redwood for your fort. Now in just 500 years or so it will be ready!"