13,000 year old oak tree living in California

"Genetic testing of individual stems shows that all are part of the same organism, Ross-Ibarra said."

This part reminded me of Avatar how the whole forest is connected
 
Imagine this would be the case as well in many ancient forests with root systems many years older than the visible growth. Amazing.

Interesting that the pic is not of the actual tree. I wonder if that is to protect it.
 
Once again, it all depends on how you define your terms. There isn't an "actual tree" in the sense of single stem you can point to. What you have is a spreading, generating system with above- and belowground parts. Yup, that genetic individual has been there for X amount of time, and their calculation of age from rate of spread assumes a lot, but is OK.

It's analogous to my colleagues publishing articles about the most massive living thing ever, a genetic individual of an Armillaria. So sure, it covered a lot of ground with a lot of mycelium but people wanted to see a mushroom the size of a skyscraper, and it just doesn't work that way.

I don't think it's much different from taking an amoeba that reproduces by division and saying that this amoeba is a billion years old because it has been dividing that long with no break in the continuity of life. If we reject spontaneous generation, then every thing alive now has been a continuous part of one living thing or another since the whole life thing got started. And you can define that last bit however you like!

Yes, yes, it is all connected and neat. It just shouldn't surprise anybody.
 
I'm hoping David Suzuki is known in the states. He's a piece of the furniture in Canada. One of the best known enviromental activists. Co-authoring with Wayne Grady he wrote a classic book called Tree: A Life Storey. He describes well how the forest is tied together right down to, for example, salmon spawning assisting the forest. I know this post has nothing to do with the oak but I think that's why these stories are published, to get people thinking and talking. The book's a good read and he has a mountain of other information.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, it all depends on how you define your terms. There isn't an "actual tree" in the sense of single stem you can point to. What you have is a spreading, generating system with above- and belowground parts. Yup, that genetic individual has been there for X amount of time, and their calculation of age from rate of spread assumes a lot, but is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand your post, we could take basal sprouts from a a broken ancient redwood, and put greater age on that "fairy ring", because the root system should be genetically the same, if not the same roots.
 
Heard someone say this about the study:

"Yes, very interesting, and very silly as well. The authors of the study
used average ring width of several different oak trunks, and then
extrapolated that rate of expansion to the entire clone, assuming no
expansion by root sprouting or layering. Its unlikely that the tree is
anywhere near as old as they say it is. The new journal Plos One where
this study was published is establishing a reputation for junk science."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom