
Arborists Have Cloned Ancient Redwoods from Their Massive Stumps - jomaorfe
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/arborists-have-cloned-ancient-redwoods-from-their-massive-stumps
======
matco11
“Cloning” here seems the wrong (click-batey) choice of words.

They have horticulturally propagated redwood trees - that’s a relatively
simple technique, commonly used by your average gardener.

What’s special here is that they found which conditions maximize the yield of
the redwoods propagation and they are planting colonies of the new trees in
areas around the world that offer particularly good/promising climatic
conditions.

As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a
relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture.

~~~
fredley
> As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a
> relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture.

Surely it's not size but speed of growth that matters? Wouldn't forests of
Leylandii (a fast-growing conifer that can grow as fast as 1m/year) felled and
resowed every few years/decades capture more carbon?

~~~
blauditore
I guess it matters a lot what happens to the grown out wood as well. If it's
burned after cutting it down, you're back to zero for that particular tree. So
assuming you're not storing large amounts of cut-down wood, the relevant
metric is amount of bound carbon per surface area, and I think larger trees
might have a higher density (in the long run) than smaller ones.

~~~
kijin
Coastal redwood lives for a looong time, up to 3000 years. All that carbon is
eventually going to go back to the atmosphere one way or another, but the time
scale looks long enough to keep some carbon safely sequestered until after
we've figured out how to live in harmony with our planet -- assuming we don't
manage to kill all the trees in the meantime.

------
mabbo
Where and when can I buy one?

Look, this is one of those cool cases where the free market may be able to
_help_ the environment instead of harming it. Sell these seedlings for
$200/each. Some number of people (myself included) will happily buy them, then
plant them _wherever_ and the world has more of these amazing trees. The funds
can be used to further the cause of helping forests and old trees.

~~~
androidgirl
You can currently purchase redwood seeds online to grow yourself! Plant them
in peat moss in large groups to be sure they survive, as most seeds are not
viable. Keep them warm until they germinate, too!

However, redwoods are really, really destructive anywhere that isn't a wide
open field. Their roots will tear up concrete and pipes. Also, they shed
branches like crazy during rapid growth, which deals damage to surrounding
structures or flora.

Just something to keep in mind! If you have space and they won't be a danger
to current inhabitants of the area, go for it.

~~~
Haga
Found them to be difficult to grow. Average dry flat air is not good, to wet
and they rot. Need water spray regularly.

~~~
chabes
Yes, coast redwoods grow where there’s plenty of ocean influence. Hence the
name..

------
ZachWick
I went to a planting a few years ago put on by this same group in Ann Arbor,
MI at the Nichols Arboretum [0]. It was pretty inspiring to see a real living
clone and hear David Milarch speak about the science and art of cloning these
old growth trees. IIRC, the clones planted in Ann Arbor are from one of the
Giant Sequoias at [1] in northern MI.

[0] [http://sustainability.umich.edu/events/sequoia-
planting](http://sustainability.umich.edu/events/sequoia-planting) [1]
[https://www.michigan.org/property/lake-bluff-bird-
sanctuary](https://www.michigan.org/property/lake-bluff-bird-sanctuary)

~~~
Exuma
I had ego death from 1/4 of mushrooms in that amazing place many years ago.
Such a beautiful little area that will be with me until I die.

~~~
samatman
Huh, can say the same actually.

Small world.

------
Dowwie
Fun fact: Metasequoia are in New York City and New Jersey. Around the five
boroughs are 100 year old, towering Dawn redwood! I have even seen full grown
trees in Cresskill, NJ. Recently, a two year art exhibit in Brooklyn [1]
concluded that used more than four thousand live, baby Metasequoia. All of the
trees have since found new homes, but I am unsure where the recipients are.

I now have a baby Metasequoia growing in the corner of my front lawn. The tree
was a gift from the owner of the tree farm that supplied the Dawn redwood for
the exhibit.

[1]
[https://www.publicartfund.org/view/exhibitions/6126_spencer_...](https://www.publicartfund.org/view/exhibitions/6126_spencer_finch_lost_man_creek)

~~~
rsync
Thank you. Another surprising redwood tree is in the "Rieterpark" in central
Zurich.

~~~
jbrazile
And further down the lake of Zurich was this one planted in 1860:

[https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2305482,8.6713386,3a,60y,287...](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2305482,8.6713386,3a,60y,287.47h,94.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8tMzvEYgewAqqS4Q2ghjsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

------
njarboe
This species of tree grows all over Northern Coastal California and there huge
preserved areas of old growth trees throughout the region. It is great to keep
replanting coastal redwoods to help replace all the ones that were cut down,
but this cloning of gigantic old stumps sure feels like a pure propaganda move
with no ecological benefit over using seeds. It is likely a bad idea to plant
a lot of clones of single individuals, especially in concentrated areas next
to each other.

~~~
kseistrup
Except the trees that were used for cloning have a proven track record of
being able to survive for hundreds of years (“some of which were 3,000 years
old”).

~~~
quixoticelixer-
It would be highly unlikely that the seeds aren't also capable doing that.

~~~
kseistrup
Right. But the clones were made from stumps, not from seed-bearing trees.

And even if you used seeds from “old trees”, there would be no guarantee that
the entire genome in the seed originated from “old trees”, or that the
relevant genes responsible for “getting old” are expressed to the same extend
as in the old tree stumps.

I'm all for genetic diversity, but I think the researchers have a point when
they use living cells from provably very, very old trees to establish new
trees. Even if you took seeds that were known to have a genome originating
from one or two “old trees” there would be significant genetic variation in
the seeds, and it would take centuries before we know if a plant from a given
seed has what it takes to become as old as its parent(s).

~~~
njarboe
Sure. But there are thousands and thousands of really big, old redwood trees
that are growing today. It cool and all to clone the biggest old stumps. But
they are likely the biggest because they were growing in very good locations.
I would say taking almost as big trees from less ideal locations growing today
have even a better chance of getting really old and big.

My point is that the stump thing is for marketing to an unknowing public, not
based on trying to find the redwood tree genomes that will grow the oldest
trees. I was trying to help public be a bit less unknowing on the subject.

------
amenod
Nitpick:

> ...some of the world’s oldest and largest coast redwoods, some of which were
> 3,000 years old... > a nonprofit working to reestablish ancient redwood
> forests to help combat climate change. Coastal redwoods, which can grow an
> average 10 feet per year, sequester 250 tons of carbon dioxide from the
> atmosphere over their lives, compared to 1 ton for an average tree.

Yes, but over <3000 years, so the comparison doesn't tell anything without
knowing the lifespan of an "average tree".

Not that it matters though, the achievement is great, and I hope this helps us
return many species that went extinct only because they had the misfortune to
exist at the same time as humans.

------
newnewpdro
This isn't the Wooly Mammoth. My impression is we already have the same
species of Redwoods living today, they just need a lot more years of growth to
reach such epic proportions.

Am I missing something?

~~~
Cthulhu_
I wonder the same; did they 'clone' the tree, or just propagate the saplings?
I think the latter is a lot more believable and less clickbait.

~~~
thaumasiotes
The article specifies that they took cuttings, a pretty ancient technology.
But the fact that the technology is old doesn't mean it's not cloning. Plants
are easy to clone.

~~~
stochastic_monk
It says “DNA” and “genetic material”, while also talking about finding living
tissue and growing from it. I think the presentation is either misleading or
confusing.

~~~
wil421
It’s a tissue culture. The result is an exact clone of the tissue doner. They
didn’t get Dino DNA from amber but a clones a clone.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_tissue_culture](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_tissue_culture)

~~~
stochastic_monk
Thank you, though I do understand. I’m saying that the article’s repeated
mention of DNA is misleading, since it’s not being directly used by humans.

------
jmspring
Sadly a lot of our forest eco-systems, especially in CA are at risk. Drought,
poor forest management, bark beattle, over forestation, etc. Were forestry
practices 100+ years ago good, not really - a lot of these ancient trees
spawned eco-systems in themselves (evident in the Headwaters groves).

That said, modern "do nothing" approaches pushed by environmental "concerns"
are the exact opposite of the over-logging. Sadly, no middle-ground was
approched with towns that relied on sustainable logging and good forest
management practices. I don't ever recall a conversation about such happening.

The recent debacles with PG&E? They are highly to blame for funneling
"maintenance money" to their parent corporation for profits. However, in
California, the National Forests vary greatly in their management practices as
well. Plumas is pretty good at cleaning duff, downed trees, etc. Some of the
others, not at all.

During the Detweiller and related fires, PG&E was offering to work with the
NPS around Yosemite to clear dead trees due to bark beattle. NPS said no. Why?
It would ruin the ambiance (of dead brown trees).

Drought, the beattle, etc. cause a number of issues for our forests in CA.
However, management practices and hinderances due to some over reactions in
environmental policy are jsut as bad.

~~~
londons_explore
Can you explain what's wrong with the "do nothing" approach?

It seems to me to be the most natural and clearly the cheapest too.

Perhaps simple steps like putting up fences or signs saying 'nature reserve,
keep out" might be worthwhile, but I don't see how any more invasive steps
will lead to a more natural forest.

~~~
FakeComments
Death is the natural outcome of heart attacks, but you don’t seem to apply
your logic to what hospitals do. There’s no a priori reason to believe the
“natural” outcome is a good outcome.

Large wildfires are natural, like heart attacks. If we want to let nature be
nature, we need to stay well clear, put up defined firebreaks, and let the
forest burn down everything next to it periodically. And then accept half or
more of certain states will be clouded in smoke some years.

Since people generally seem unwilling to do that, and live next to the forest,
or just don’t like smokey cities, the next choice is to manage the forest and
minimize the intensity of forest fires while having some control over the
timing through managed burns. This has side benefits like increasing the air
quality across the whole state, because you never get these giant fires.

The worst outcome seems to be having people live next to the forest while
doing nothing, because we periodically have random disasters and financial
messes.

------
hiccuphippo
Won't they have problems with the low genetic diversity the same way Cavendish
bananas seem to be in problem now?

~~~
bduerst
The redwood trees are still able to sexually reproduce with other variants,
unlike the banana trees that are cultivated for crops.

~~~
mark-r
The issue is that they appear to be establishing groves of genetically
identical trees, so sexual reproduction is irrelevant. Unless you're planting
next to an established forest.

~~~
bduerst
The difference still lay in that the groves are still genetically different
from each other, unlike bananas which are the same genetic organism planted on
thousands of acres.

~~~
mark-r
That does no good unless the groves are close enough to allow interbreeding.
From what I understand they're trying to establish these groves all around the
world, and most won't have any neighbors.

------
RosanaAnaDana
Total aside, but as an undergraduate, I was part of the school tissue culture
club. We brought 'albino' redwoods into culture and made a pretty hefty profit
selling carnivorous plants on Fridays.

We did a tour of a local redwood companies tissue culture lab, and almost all
the employees were female, and a fair few had developed severe arthritis in
their work. Was very depressing to see.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Would it be possible to automate tissue culture with precision robotics?

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
Totally. Especially considering that plants are a kind of biological machine
which works to turn light into plant stuff. This means that how the plant
interacts with light can tell you _a-lot_ about the health and well being of
the light. A pinch of machine vision, and you are pretty much there.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Thanks. Is this already being done? Or is it a tech waiting to be delivered?

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
I'm almost 100% convinced its already being done by private industry; you can
do the vast majority of it w.out any ML/AI component. Biggest issue however is
that it only makes sense on high margin plants.

See, as it turns out, plants already have this novel/ ingenious way of
packaging the data required to make complete copies of into very discrete
packages. They're called seeds, and in general, for the vast majority of
cases, seeds which are often actually cheaper than dirt are just fine. Only
when you have a plant that has certain characteristics (GMO in a non-
hereditary trait etc..) does this make real sense.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
I understand. I was thinking of Apple and stone fruit orchards where
commercially fruit is grown in a standard way and would require exact clones
etc.

------
drieddust
That stump is sad reminder of greedy destruction we have bought to the world.
I hope we can reverse it.

~~~
chris_overseas
For anyone looking to offset their carbon emissions, I looked into the various
options and settled on Cool Earth[0] as the most promising charity for this.
Here's some commentary on them from independent research on charities[1]: "We
estimate that Cool Earth is able to reduce emissions by 1 tonne of
CO2-equivalent for every $1.34 donated, for directly protected forest
specifically (although this figure may be as low as $0.65). If indirectly
shielded forest is also included, this drops to $0.38 per tonne of
CO2-equivalent. This is 25 times less expensive than most carbon offset
providers, which typically reduce emissions by 1 tonne for roughly every $10
spent"

Having said that, it's even better to not produce the CO₂ in the first place
of course.

[0] [https://www.coolearth.org/](https://www.coolearth.org/)

[1] [https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-
earth/](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/report/cool-earth/)

~~~
thangalin
"At this stage the information gathered doesn’t allow me to give a strong
opinion on Cool Earth, but I would recommend that we now consider the earlier
[Giving What We Can] analysis out of date."

[https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/...](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/RnmZ62kuuC8XzeTBq/why-
we-have-over-rated-cool-earth)

------
throwaway5752
This is a great thing that will pay increasingly high dividends for decades
and centuries:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914)

------
rcostin2k2
How is the CO2 capture for redwood (250t over 3000yrs per tree) compared with
other trees ? Would be interesting to know if the lifecycle of those short
lived trees (compared with redwood) have better efficiency regarding the
carbon capture ...

------
JulianMorrison
Just seeing that stump makes me terribly sad for what has already been lost.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Many forested parts of the US were stripped bare 100 years ago. These will
become old growth in time.

------
User23
I always wonder how grafting and budding were discovered.

~~~
josefresco
This might help:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting#History,_society_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting#History,_society_and_culture)

~~~
User23
Thanks for the link. I meant in a more narrative sense though. I like to
imagine that some fool cut down a tree and changed his or her mind and tried
to stick it back together and lo and behold it worked.

------
mark-r
Unfortunately these clones are establishing monocultures that are unlikely to
do well long term. You need some genetic diversity.

~~~
rattray
Redwoods commonly grow as clones in the wild:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens#Reproduct...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens#Reproduction)

~~~
mark-r
Yes, but they're not all the _same_ clones.

------
nicwilson
Wow! That is one big tree.

------
justaguyhere
3000 years! Isn't mother nature amazing?!

