3 ms·
Not literally, but in style. They are clearly trees. But they exist in a large underground network of roots, and spawn trunks upwards over that large area, not
by cschneid 3y ago
Not literally, but in style. They are clearly trees.
But they exist in a large underground network of roots, and spawn trunks upwards over that large area, not unlike how many funguses do. Convergent evolution of an approach to life.
- finnh 3y agoThanks. I'm definitely a layman here, but I lived in Utah about 10 years ago and did some reading on Aspens, which is when I came across that comparison. I was hoping to find a direct citation to post here but haven't managed to do so yet. A fire (or clear cut) can take down the entire overstory of trees, but that living root system will survive & send up more "suckers" that become new trees. It's this "the real life is underground" vibe that makes them particularly fungi-like to me. I wonder if any other trees are like Aspens in this regard...
- tarentel 3y agoI don't think you're going to find a citation to the original post. I don't think they were saying aspen are a type of fungi just that they act like one in some ways.
- mlyle 3y agoHe's the original commenter. He is saying that he was reading about aspens from experts and they made the comparison that the big clonal set of aspens have a lot of properties we'd normally associate with fungi. He wants to find that original source to share but can't.
- svachalek 3y agoRedwoods also grow like this but not to the same degree. They do form "fairy rings" like mushrooms though.