5 ms·

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 re

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.

tsmith5432 8y ago
For some plants, there is a great variance in behavior between the parent plant and a plant grown from seed. Apples for instance, if grown from seed, likely will not carry all the properties of the parent plant. E.g., the fruit will not taste the same. Apple trees mostly have desirable fruit bearing tissue grafted onto plain understock. Also, some plants show different growth characteristics in mature tissue than in young tissue, but I don't know if that applies to the redwoods.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  The plants you are thinking of are F1 hybrids. Obviously wild trees are by definition not F1 hybrids.
kseistrup 8y ago
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- 8y ago
  It would be highly unlikely that the seeds aren't also capable doing that.
  - kseistrup 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
ahje 8y ago
The first sentence of the article mentions the saplings have been taken from multiple sources (five different stumps), which means there's probably some genetic variation amongst the saplings.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

tsmith5432 8y ago

For some plants, there is a great variance in behavior between the parent plant and a plant grown from seed. Apples for instance, if grown from seed, likely will not carry all the properties of the parent plant. E.g., the fruit will not taste the same. Apple trees mostly have desirable fruit bearing tissue grafted onto plain understock. Also, some plants show different growth characteristics in mature tissue than in young tissue, but I don't know if that applies to the redwoods.

jdmichal 8y ago
The plants you are thinking of are F1 hybrids. Obviously wild trees are by definition not F1 hybrids.

kseistrup 8y ago

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- 8y ago
It would be highly unlikely that the seeds aren't also capable doing that.
- kseistrup 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

ahje 8y ago

The first sentence of the article mentions the saplings have been taken from multiple sources (five different stumps), which means there's probably some genetic variation amongst the saplings.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]