
Aussie firefighters save world's only groves of prehistoric Wollemi pines - pseudolus
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/796994699/aussie-firefighters-save-worlds-only-groves-of-prehistoric-wollemi-pines
======
eloff
Is anyone else blown away that life as large as a couple hundred of these
trees could remain hidden from discovery until 1994 in a developed nation?
We're talking about a national park in Australia, not the inaccessible depths
of the Amazon encircled by the Andes.

It makes one wonder what else is out there to still be discovered.

~~~
Infernal
Central Australia is a pretty big place too...

[https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTUyNTIxNDM.NDkxNjc4OA*...](https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTUyNTIxNDM.NDkxNjc4OA*MTk2NzI5NDc\(MzMxNzI5NDc~!AU*MTU4ODQwNjQ.MzM2MDkzMzM\)NA)

EDIT: It seems that these pines are in NSW, which is in the southeast of
Australia, not central Australia. My point about the size of the place stands
however.

~~~
ben7799
Neither here nor there really but that page is total fail as it seems to be
using the Mercator projection which is terrible for comparing sizes!

Drag Greenland down to the equator and watch it shrink, it's really odd!

~~~
Infernal
Yeah that’s the point of it, if you grab a country near the equator and drag
to the poles it will balloon.

It’s about showing relative sizes of countries by placing them at the same
point on the projection than it is about creating a projection with accurate
absolute sizes.

------
sailfast
Not for nothing, but doesn't the occasional fire help habitats overall? I
would expect ground-based seedlings in a canyon to perhaps regrow, and perhaps
they have had a few fires over the millions of years of their existence?
[https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-
scienc...](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/how-
forest-fire-benefit-living-things-2.htm)

Not saying this is a net good - more of a silver lining / glass half full.

~~~
brianfitz
Yes, but the idea is to set controlled fires to prevent these larger
uncontrolled ones. It not only requires regular controlled fires, but when
they are performed, for how long, and where are all critical. The remaining
factor is you have to ensure the controlled fires do not burn _too hot_. This
is knowledge that was passed down from the indigenous people of Australia, but
apparently has not been well understood (it’s not easy, especially the part
about hot enough versus too hot).

[https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-
owners...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-
predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320?pfmredir=sm)

------
ianai
How can they make this claim given the current political powers that be in Au?

“””

Kean said. "There's a huge opportunity for us to lead the way in terms of
tackling climate change and help the rest of the world decarbonize. There's no
better country on the planet better placed to do that than Australia."

“””

~~~
wongarsu
"We have to lead the way to X" sounds much better than "the current policy is
a huge mistake because it doesn't do X". Both lead to the same action, but one
frames it as a way to recognition and a new legacy, the other is accusing
people of incompetence or worse.

If you want people to act then telling them they can become internationally
recognized generally works better than accusing them.

------
ckastner
This may sound cynical, but I'm honestly just curious in hearing arguments:

What's the point of risking human lives and wasting resources on something
that is kept a secret? For all we know, more people have walked on the Moon
than seen this forest.

I'm not criticizing that they did it. I'm glad they did. I can see the
emotional value to it, in keeping a species that has survived millions of
years alive longer, and I share that emotion.

But was it rational? What was the benefit of this action?

~~~
j-wags
From a purely monetary standpoint, genetic diversity has growing commercial
uses [1]. Isolated ecosystems often contain genes and enzymes that let us
access new areas of chemical space (this is big in drug discovery ATM). We
recognize that sequencing methods at a given time may not capture all of the
relevant info about a gene (ex. methylation, weird folds, expression), so
having living samples as new technology becomes available is critical in this
research.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_product)

~~~
cairo_x
Speaking of genetic diversity, interestingly, the grove in question has none
whatsoever.

In the gorge there are perhaps 100 clumps of trees, but genetically there
could be as few as one or two 'individuals'. This is because each plant has
multiple clumps of trunks. The plants basically clone themselves, which makes
the entire population extremely precarious in terms of disease.

------
Zardoz84
There are samples of this tree on another site ? it would interesting grow
some of they on a few botanical parks.

~~~
squiggleblaz
The article says they saved the only grove of them in their natural habitat in
a secret location, so I assume that means they're growing in botanic gardens
in other parts of Australia. But since they were only discovered in 1994 it's
likely we're dependent on these groves.

~~~
rini17
They are spread in many botanical gardens by now. I have seen one myself,
properly protected by iron cage.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
You can even buy Wollemi pine seedlings at the Mt Tomah Botanic Gardens in the
Blue Mountains, which is near the (still secret) spot they were found. But
they cost $100+ a pop and are apparently rather tricky to grow.

[http://wollemipine.com/order.php](http://wollemipine.com/order.php)

~~~
ianai
I wonder whether it’d be dangerous to introduce them on other continents. I’m
naturally against such ideas usually, but the entire American continent is
full of such things already. At least the SW has invasive trees that seem
somewhat integrated.

~~~
pvaldes
Probably not. Is cultivated from seeds, is huge, needs a lot of time to flower
and reproduce, and is economically valuable.

Creation of new populations ex-situ of critically endangered species is
normally seen as beneficial. Is an exception allowed under certain
circumstances.

~~~
breischl
>economically valuable.

Is that solely because of their rarity, or is there some other reason?

~~~
pvaldes
Some of this trees, still alive, were born when Europe was in the Middle Age.
The genus is monotypic and exists since the last 200 millions of years or so.

Those are invaluable comprehensive reviews about australian climate and
history registering each single, warm, hot and cold year, each volcanic
eruption. In a place of the planet without written documents and mostly
unknown before the arrival of the white men. We can infer from here if
something happened with the macrofauna (when), if people migrations match some
harsh decade and dry spell, if it was an equivalent to a small ice age or not,
etc. Is a treasure of data.

~~~
breischl
OK, so they're scientifically valuable, historically valuable, perhaps
emotionally or culturally valuable. That's plenty good enough reason to save
them - I'm not trying to argue they shouldn't have been saved.

But I'm still not seeing that they have any current economic value. Which is
fine, not everything needs to have economic value, I was just curious if there
is some that I was missing.

------
sb8244
My immediate thought is that satellite pictures could show where the trees are
at, since it's burned all around them, and then people will try to visit them.

~~~
satori99
They are asking people not too, but also its hard to overstate just how rugged
and inhospitable the terrain to the north west of Sydney is.

It is essentially untouched wilderness that is very difficult to traverse for
even experienced bush-walkers and hikers. The area is riddled with steep
canyons that are all but impassable without specialist equipment.

Even if you knew the exact location, it would still be very hard to actually
get there.

~~~
derrida
And if you did, you would probably bring the diseases that wiped out this
species that used to cover all of Australia and Antarctica and has some how
miraculously survived in 1 hidden valley.

So just don't.

And if you know where it is, don't share it.

Thanks.

~~~
0xffff2
I'm not at all arguing that everyone should go visit, but if the trees are
really that fragile how did they manage this fire-fighting operation? I can't
imagine the firefighters scrubbed up and put on surgical scrubs before
rappelling into the forest.

~~~
derrida
I can. I mean, Australia is OH&S mad & really full on biosecurity. I do high
risk work as a rigger, we need a whole bunch of random OH&S qualification,
then on a job, might have rope access gear a bunch of tools, and that's just
showing up for a gig. In this case you're talking the same, plus helicopter
experience (belaying down), ability to signal and radio with a helicopter,
search and rescue qualifications, firefighting experience. Can't imagine that
in addition to putting on the harness and kitting up, they had a bit of a
spraydown before hand. It would probably be something that kills fungi and
bacteria, maybe as simple as tea-tree oil.

------
pvaldes
It was close... a good new at least. One of the closest things to a Jurassic
park still extant in the planet.

------
Zenst
[https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/134274/i-Wollemia-
nobilis-i/De...](https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/134274/i-Wollemia-
nobilis-i/Details)

Seems it is widely available for sale as well, which as only discovered in
1994 is kinda good to know that had this growth died, the tree would live on.

------
arbol
Great news but terrible that we're in this situation in the first place.
Hopefully the Australian government wakes up to the climate crisis.

~~~
genS3
do we even have proof its due to climate crisis. eucalyptus is highly
flammable, tourism increases, im pretty sure fires can start from some foil
paper on the floor in those regions. also like the aboriginal australian use
to do, you need to clean the bush and forests. we should focus our efforts
onto that rather than talking about a philosophical "climate crisis" that
wipes out concrete efforts that governements can lead to protect their
forests.

~~~
pjc50
> philosophical "climate crisis"

The climate crisis is very real and very observable.

------
lasky
Am I the only one who winces at the brain-numbing robot-like false confidence
and dogmatic preaching of attributing all natural disaster to man-made climate
change?

~~~
strken
There's a reasonable case for the impact of climate change here: the drought
in Australia has been partly caused by the reversal of the Indian Ocean gyre,
which is linked to climate change, and the fires occurred during a heatwave,
during a time when heatwave are becoming more common, which is also linked to
climate change.

Like you I'm also frustrated by the dogmatism around climate change. I think
the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis
of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of
both sides, and that's a really big problem because it moves the debate away
from observable reality and into the realm of politics.

~~~
yesenadam
>the majority of people on both sides have chosen their position on the basis
of political allegiance and social identity rather than a consideration of
both sides

How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"? (i.e. a
method not requiring more skills than most people have, or more time than most
people would want to invest.) I think I have above average skills in reading
scientific papers etc, but still it's not clear to me at all how to go about
doing that. I guess I'd find the climate change report that seemed to have the
most credibility with (ultimately) the kind of people whose politics I like,
and yield to that because of its authority. Not much "considering" involved.

And..are there actually only two "sides"?

~~~
strken
> How would you suggest most people actually consider "both sides"?

I'd suggest that they have a look at local weather data going back a couple of
decades, compare it to global data, check out the methodologies used to
calculate that data, read a few of the best resources they can find from each
side, and try to work out what the debate is about.

I don't think many people will change their minds, but I hope that they'll
learn what both sides _actually are_ and come to have more respect for the
other side.

> And..are there actually only two "sides"?

I think there are two sides to the question "how much effort should we spend
preventing climate change?", and those sides are "no effort" and "all
available effort", with plenty of middle ground. I think serious debate around
climate change is about where we are on that continuum, rather than whether
man-made climate change is actually happening.

