
Old Tjikko, the oldest living clonal Norway Spruce - shawndumas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko
======
davidw
Wikipedia article is far more informative and far less spammy:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko)

~~~
bythe4mile
This article states that it is not the oldest tree since its a clonal tree and
not an individual. So I am confused, is it the oldest or not?

~~~
lmm
There are older clonal trees. They have dated genetic material matching this
tree that is that old, but since the species can be clonal, that old genetic
material is likely from an older clone and not the current individual.

~~~
grabcocque
Again, from 'pedia

oldest clonal colony is probably
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)#Size_and_age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_\(tree\)#Size_and_age)

80,000-100,000 years old!

~~~
hanklazard
I come back to this one time and time again. Blows my mind to think about the
fact that all of A.D. time is just a tiny fraction of what this organism has
lived through.

------
deathanatos
For an even older tree, see Pando[1]. (HN previous discussion on Pando[2].)
(And according to Wikipedia[3], the designation "World's Oldest Tree" would
seem to be incorrect here.)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_\(tree\))

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9798911](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9798911)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko)

~~~
to3m
Also interesting:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomatia_tasmanica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomatia_tasmanica)

"King's Lomatia is unusual because all of the remaining plants are genetically
identical. Because it has three sets of chromosomes (a triploid) and is
therefore sterile, reproduction occurs only vegetatively ... the plant has
been cloning itself for at least 43,600 years (possibly up to 135,000 years)"

------
cossatot
One of the cooler things about old trees is that the oldest ones tend to be
puny, pathetic looking, twisted little individuals, because they grow very
slowly and are often weather-beaten. The slow growth is because they tend to
be located in exposed areas that have little soil and therefore not much
storage for water, which limits growth but also reduces risk from fires,
fungus, and other pests that jump from tree to tree. They may also be at the
treeline, where temperature is a limiting growth factor as well.

One of the first papers to document this is a paper by E. Schulman of Caltech
in 1957, called _Longevity under Adversity in Conifers_ [0]. Since then, this
has been confirmed extensively in many more environments and tree families
than Schulman analyzed. The basics are that slower growth minimizes resource
use as well as the attack surface to pests, so the organisms can subsist for
thousands of years until they are killed by climate change, or more
frequently, the ground eroding out beneath them. It's somewhat reminiscent of
the stereotypical monk/lama/mystic living an ascetic life in a cave in the
mountains high above the gluttonous cities. However, the basic ideas of
finding a niche on the fringe, limiting risk exposure and resource use, and
staying small for a long time are completely inappropriate to the tech
community, of course.

[0]:
[http://wmrc.edu/history/docs/science-1954.pdf](http://wmrc.edu/history/docs/science-1954.pdf)

(edited for clarity)

------
plainOldText
I can't help but feeling a bit sad for this tree. It's been living there,
alone, with no other comrades, for thousands of years, silently giving us
oxygen without asking for anything in return. Maybe people should plant a few
trees of its kind around it, so that this fellow can belong to a social
network. [1]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/world/europe/german-
forest...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/world/europe/german-forest-
ranger-finds-that-trees-have-social-networks-too.html)

~~~
dalke
The picture shows that it's surrounded by comrades. Those comrades are the
shrubs around it. Until recently, this tree was the same way. Quoting the
Wikipedia entry at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Tjikko)
:

> For thousands of years, the tree appeared in a stunted shrub formation (also
> known as a krummholz formation) due to the harsh extremes of the environment
> in which it lives. During the warming of the last century, the tree has
> sprouted into a normal tree formation

~~~
plainOldText
A shrub is not a tree. (:

~~~
riffraff
in this case it is, it's literally the same organism as they share the same
roots. Though that would make it lonely again I guess.

------
reitzensteinm
At least they didn't find that out by cutting it down!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_\(tree\))

------
shogun21
I bet this guy feels a lot better now!

[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-one-man-
acciden...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-one-man-accidentally-
killed-the-oldest-tree-ever-125764872/?no-ist)

------
matheweis
According to the Wikipedia article referenced here, "the age of the tree was
determined by carbon dating of genetically matched plant material collected
from under the tree"

There's a tree on my campus called the George Washington Elm;
[http://www7.nau.edu/arboretum/Littleman/washington_elm.html](http://www7.nau.edu/arboretum/Littleman/washington_elm.html)

It was apparently grown from a rooted sprig of the tree under which George
Washington assumed command Of The Continental Army on July 3, 1775

Genuinely curious; does this mean the George Washington Elm tree here would be
classified as being over 250 years old?

------
BuffaloBagel
Sucky title, it's the oldest _clonal_ tree in Norway.

~~~
robin_reala
It’s not in Norway, it’s a Norway Spruce that’s in Sweden.

~~~
DrScump
Are you suggesting that spruce _migrate?_

------
ChuckMcM
So once people die off the remaining trees will become old growth forests :-)
More seriously though, I love the fact that 9500 years ago sea level was 120M
lower than it is today. I feel bad for people who lived in coastal cities back
then but thinking about how much the world changes in relatively short time
spans reminds me how dynamic it is. Never a dull moment on earth!

~~~
dalke
Post-glacial rebound means that land in some parts of the world is still
rising after being pressed down by the weight of glaciers.

There are Nordic place names with terms like "island", places that were one
coastal villages now far from the sea, and Lake Mälaren, once part of the
Baltic, became a freshwater lake about 800 years ago.

In some areas the land rise is 1cm _per year_ , and is noticeable in someone's
lifetime. (The only comparison picture I could find is
[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ppAQwRyWqWM/VBtDKBWso5I/AAAAAAAAAK...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ppAQwRyWqWM/VBtDKBWso5I/AAAAAAAAAKI/dd0P29HUvNw/s640/karvaken%2Barchipelago%2Buplift.jpg)
from [http://sburnadventure.blogspot.com/2014/09/kayaking-
finnish-...](http://sburnadventure.blogspot.com/2014/09/kayaking-finnish-
kvarken-archipelago.html) )

------
grabcocque
I swear it doesn't look a day over 8,000.

------
tachion
Yggdrasil! ;)

