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.

Comments

Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[rsilvergun]

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

Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[fustakrakich]

Oh no! It's much worse than that!

Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[alvinrod]

Dinosaur of Trees?

Jurassic Bark!

Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[TeknoHog]

Sounds Ent-ertaining.

Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[GameboyRMH]

*Richard Attenborough voice*

Welcome...to Jurassic Gardens.

(Insert John Williams score here)

Re:Terrifying images of Dinosaurs of Trees

[syn3rg]

Very well played.
Wish I had mod points.

More forests are good.

[Kernel Kurtz]

The particular trees are less important.

Re:More forests are good.

[xlsior]

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)

Re:More forests are good.

[kenai_alpenglow]

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...

Re: More forests are good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: More forests are good.

[ChrisMaple]

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.

Experts performing scientific feats are good.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Experts performing scientific feats are good.

[Kernel Kurtz]

Yes, we know, they are saving the world.

Carry on.

Obligatory

[marcle]

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

Re:Obligatory

[marcle]

Um, that was a quote from Ronald Reagan.

Re:Obligatory

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

There is unrest in the forest.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is trouble with the trees.

lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[gurps_npc]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you actually RTFA?

What a sapling!

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[Brett Buck]

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...

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[Brett Buck]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[tomhath]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[iggymanz]

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....

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[skam240]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[mjwx]

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).

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[Brett Buck]

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.

Re:lots of bad lingo hiding interesting article.

[cyberchondriac]

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.

This is cool and all

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is cool and all

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:This is cool and all

[Sique]

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.

Invasive Species

[cyocum]

"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?

Re:Invasive Species

[dfghjk]

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.

Re:Invasive Species

[1ucius]

"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.

Hardiest?

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Re:Hardiest?

[cb88]

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...

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No.

[Sique]

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.

USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate

[js290]

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

Re:USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate

[Brett Buck]

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

Re:USDA Zone 8 Mediterrean type climate

[js290]

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

Re:Barrier?

[PPH]

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.

Um..something isn't right.

[mark_reh]

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...

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[careysub]

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.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[Rob Lister]

nicely put.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[1ucius]

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.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[Shark]

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

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Um..something isn't right.

[ChrisMaple]

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

Obligatory pun

[TimMD909]

Jurassic Bark.

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[arglebargle_xiv]

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.

Slashdot really is dead - Netcraft confirms it

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Assisted invasion of species

[dorzak]

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

Re:Assisted invasion of species

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Assisted invasion of species

[dfghjk]

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.

Re:Assisted invasion of species

[WillAffleckUW]

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

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Antique Geekmeister]

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

Nice

[nospam007]

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

Re:Nice

[Plumpaquatsch]

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

Just use the banana ray from The Orville on it.

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Rob Lister]

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

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re: What would stop the greedy morons

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Rob Lister]

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.

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re: What would stop the greedy morons

[nukenerd]

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.

Re: Jurassic Bark

[Bite The Pillow]

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

Re:What would stop the greedy morons

[Rob Lister]

great point

Re: What would stop the greedy morons

[zwarte piet]

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