[HN Gopher] Ancient redwoods recover from fire by sprouting 1000... ___________________________________________________________________ Ancient redwoods recover from fire by sprouting 1000-year-old buds Author : sohkamyung Score : 232 points Date : 2023-12-02 10:42 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | Almondsetat wrote: | Does this mean trees have evolutionary countermeasures to fires? | Does this in turn mean fires were so much more common than we | think? | qazxcvbnmlp wrote: | I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. But the answer to the | first question has been known in the forestry community to be | yes for quite some time. | | For instance - there are certain species that require the heat | of a fire for their seeds to explode and grow new plants. | Almondsetat wrote: | Believe it or not: the forestry community is not that big | | Edit: and judging from the gratuitous downvotes, pretty petty | as well | abakker wrote: | I think the reason for downvotes here is that you don't | need to be in the forestry community to know this. It's | been in science textbooks since I was in 4th grade, kids | did presentations and posters on it, it's in documentaries, | it's on informational plaques in multiple national parks. | The fact that some tree species are evolved to survive | fires or require fires for germination is not | controversial. | yodon wrote: | It's not that the forestry community is petty, it's more | likely that the HN community doesn't like comments that | don't add substantively to the conversation, and | particularly doesn't like them as an add-on to a thoughtful | and polite answer to a question. | Almondsetat wrote: | Doubting my integrity by suggesting I'm being sarcastic | just because I don't know something that clearly isn't | common knowledge is thoughtful and polite? | gausswho wrote: | That describes me. Don't take downvotes as a remark on | your position. I pass them out to anything that doesn't | raise the level of discussion. | | I also hand them out to every top ancestor comment that | uses the word 'downvote', for the same reason. | roughly wrote: | In California over the last few years, salience has led | forestry and fire's place in it to become a bit less of a | niche interest, at least certainly among the geekier/hn- | leaning community. | 23B1 wrote: | My understanding is that fires in forests are not only quite | common and have been long before humans were around, but that | naturally-occurring fires are a critical part of forest's | natural lifecycle and evolution. | retrac wrote: | Fire has been a major force in the evolution of land-based | life. Even more so in the distant past. In the Cretaceous (70 - | 140 million years ago) both temperatures and the oxygen ratio | in the atmosphere appear to have been higher than now. The | whole planet was covered in a thick tropical forest -- and it | burned easily. The dinosaurs had to contend with continent-wide | forest fires, and their bones are often found in the middle of | a layer of charcoal. | VoodooJuJu wrote: | Yes. Some species actually _need_ fire for their seeds to | activate at all. I 'm surprised this isn't more widely known. I | wonder what would change about climate activism and wildfire | management if more people understood this. | bcrosby95 wrote: | Maybe. But most fires in the California coast are human caused. | Today, lightning is extremely rare. | | Furthermore, be careful extending this train of thought to | other biomes. My understanding of California chaparral is it's | evolved to survive fire, but if it happens too often the biome | disappears and turns into grassland. Some of the plants take | decades of recovery before they are capable of fruiting. | | Just because a species has evolved to survive fire doesn't | necessarily mean it needs it. | jwlake wrote: | Massive fire suppression is uniquely human. | margalabargala wrote: | > But most fires in the California coast are human caused. | Today, lightning is extremely rare. | | Is it actually any less common than it used to be, or are | lightning fires simply a much smaller percentage of burning | measured by fire count or acreage? | | I can't speak for CA but up in Oregon we regularly have | lightning causing fires all summer. | roughly wrote: | > But most fires in the California coast are human caused. | | Worth a note that regular usage of fire to clear underbrush | was a very, very long standing practice among the native | population - long enough to have affected the landscape and | the trees in it. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Even places like New Jersey have done prescribed burns for the | last 100 years (source: ex-resident)) | mistrial9 wrote: | ecosystems of trees differ greatly across the globe. Here in | California, one widely cited reference article on this topic is | doi:10.1093/biosci/bix146 | | Drought, Tree Mortality, and Wildfire in Forests Adapted to | Frequent Fire Stephens, et al. 2018 | ryaneager wrote: | Yes, they do the bark of a redwood trees is fire resistance, | and even certain seeds in the forest need fire in order to | start their germination. | mytailorisrich wrote: | In areas prone to fire some plants do have evolutionary | adaptation. | | In the Mediterranean, cork oaks have thick bark (which we use | to make cork for wine bottles...) that scorches while the tree | survives. | | The seeds of Australian acacias need the heat from wildfires in | order to germinate. | | In some cycads the heat of fire triggers blooming, and | gardeners stick hay in the crown and set it on fire in order to | get a bloom and seeds. | | Etc. | wongarsu wrote: | Trees native to many areas have developed evolutionary | countermeasures to fires. Trees native to many other areas | haven't. Some trees have measures to recover from being eaten | or destroyed by large animals, and often those measures work | equally well if the tree was damaged by fire or even burned | down completely. | | Trees are such a diverse group of plants that it's hard to say | anything about them in aggregate | SonOfLilit wrote: | If a tree lives on average for 200 years, and has a mortality | rate of 100% in a forest fire, you don't need fires to be very | common for adaptations to fire to be worth it. Just one fire in | each forest every 2,000 years or so would be enough. 20,000 | years should do too, but I'm less confident of this. | | Was lighting more common? Probably not. Were forests bigger and | less gardened to prevent spread of fire? Definitely. So for | each tree, there was a much larger area of vulnerability to | lightning strikes. | suzzer99 wrote: | This is certainly true for the American West. Unfortunately | in places like Patagonia the lenga trees never had to adapt | to natural fire, so man-made fires are catastrophic. | dboreham wrote: | Some species of tree have cones that need to be burned before | they will open. So, probably yes. | bcbrown wrote: | Absolutely, many trees have evolutionary countermeasures to | fires. Some trees are very well-suited to colonized disturbed | ground - they will opportunistically surge into an area after a | wildfire, as either more of their seeds will germinate, or more | seedlings will sprout into favorable conditions. Other trees | have adaptations that make it more likely to survive wildfire; | both sequoia and douglas-fir have layers of insulating bark up | to a foot thick. | | Some trees have adaptations to ensure that their seeds only | spread after a wildfire; sequoia cones are sealed shut by a | resin that only melts in the intense heat of a wildfire. Some | species can even be thought of as having adaptations that | encourage wildfires in order to out-compete species that are | less wildfire-resistant; grasslands require wildfire on the | shoulders of foothills, where otherwise trees would gradually | creep down the slopes. The dry foliage at the end of summer | provides ideal conditions for wildfires. | | If you want to learn more about fire adaptation, an excellent | entry point is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotiny. | danrl wrote: | Here in the U.S. west coast mountains some land owners started | controlled fires on their property to get rid of the stacking | fuel naturally while preserving the bound minerals and helping | the large redwoods and sequoias to fend of contenders. I have no | idea how they managed to get a permit in this area where | officials and population ate crazily scared of these natural | processes given that uncontrolled fires make the news every year. | | Also, a second generation redwood forest looks very different | from an undisturbed one I recently learned from a forest guy who | walked with me. He was reading the forest like a book. Very | impressive. Turns out, my forest is a second generation and I | should maybe take down a few redwoods, something I considered | morally wrong before the walkthrough. | retrac wrote: | Prescribed burns (intentional, hopefully controlled, fires) are | increasingly common in modern forestry and wildfire prevention. | They're done in Canada and Australia, and from a quick search, | it was brought back into practice in the 1990s in the USA. | | Parks Canada has an interesting FAQ about their practices: | https://parks.canada.ca/nature/science/conservation/feu-fire... | sakopov wrote: | Controlled burns is a very old practice. So old, in fact, that | Native American tribes have used it for centuries to prevent | catastrophic wild fires in North America. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | Supposedly. In my readings the evidence is thin on this oft- | repeated claim. | lukas099 wrote: | Very interesting, could you point us to some further | reading? | not2b wrote: | The (US) National Park Service disagrees with you, so much | so that in some places they hire native elders to help them | with controlled burns. They call the practices "cultural | burning". They were done for many purposes, over millenia. | | See https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fire/indigenous-fire- | practices-... | downWidOutaFite wrote: | The small tribes of the northwest might have used fire | for clearing land in their immediate area but there is no | evidence that they were managing hundreds of thousands of | acres of forests in order to reduce large wildfires. | graphe wrote: | Most old growth trees are gone. He gave proof they used | controlled burns. Where is the evidence for the claim | it's only ""small"" tribes? | mock-possum wrote: | Yeah it's one of those things that kind of sits | uncomfortably in the "native Americans were wise nature | wizards and we have to unlearn our toxic western industrial | capitalist beliefs in order to rediscover their hidden | mystical wisdom to save the planet" territory | | Like it's a good story, and it's true to some degree, but | the pageantry around the language people use when treating | it is... I dunno it just still sounds like gross Cowboys- | and-Indians prose. | mikewarot wrote: | Native Americans were wise natural wizards.... but it was | the Native American Beavers[1,2] doing the work, not the | people. | | [1] https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/services/environment | /animal... | | [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how- | beavers-shape... | thimkerbell wrote: | Though they did it for deer and preferred plant habitat I | think. | dtgriscom wrote: | Well, "had used it for centuries..." | suzzer99 wrote: | I'm not sure about redwoods, but tropical rainforests take | something like 5,000-10,000 years to return to pristine old- | growth state. | odyssey7 wrote: | This makes me want to see designated areas for old-growth | forests to re-establish, and yet there's almost no chance | that the people living in those areas 2000 years from now | will have continuously held the same values and kept the | project going. | tomcam wrote: | Cynic. I plan to prove you wrong. | | Day 1: Trees in backyard are fine. Sent a triumphant note | to Odyssey7. | odyssey7 wrote: | Amazing. Keep me posted! | tomcam wrote: | I'LL SHOW YOU BUDDY | graphe wrote: | Where did you read that? | bcbrown wrote: | I'd question that definition of "pristine". The old-growth | temperate rainforests of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, | have only existed for about 10-12,000 years; that's about how | long it's been since the entire area was covered by an ice | sheet. | fsckboy wrote: | but as the ice sheet retreated, was that area colonized by | species already adapted to temperate rainforest? or did | unique speciation occur in situ? | dtgriscom wrote: | At least part of that is the climate. A forest in a tropical | zone is so efficient at processing nutrients that the soil | beneath a forest is almost nutrient-free; the nutrients are | always moving from plant to plant. If you take off the | forest, what is left is not very hospitable and erodes | easily. | | Temperate forests accumulate humus; remove the trees and | there are nutrients sitting there waiting to foster new | growth. | | (IANA forestry expert...) | jmspring wrote: | Sometimes those landowners doing prescribed burns don't always | do them in the best conditions. The Estrada Fire was near the | Santa Cruz Mountains east of Watsonville. I've been to the | property several times over the years and it has some beuatiful | redwood groves including an albino redwood or two. | | Story - https://pajaronian.com/as-cal-fire-makes-progress-on- | estrada... | dmoy wrote: | The US West Coast lags way behind almost the entire rest of the | US w.r.t using controlled burns to limit wildfire danger. | | California intentionally burns like only half of the area as | Minnesota, despite being like twice as big. | | Arkansas, GA, SC, etc all burn like 5-10x what CA does, for | prevention purposes. | | Growing up outside of the West and moving to the West later, I | was shocked how little controlled burns there are here. | Projectiboga wrote: | There is very little original "old growth" forest anywhere in | the Continental US. It is usually in small parts of hard to log | areas like around small streams, soft ground blocking how to | remove the logs and certain slopes and hills. | mathgradthrow wrote: | The ents are going to war! | vinnymac wrote: | Whenever I read these stories I wonder what I can do to maintain | the forest on my own property better. | | Curious if anyone here has any books they would recommend on tree | identification and maintenance? | agilob wrote: | https://old.reddit.com/r/marijuanaenthusiasts/ | pvaldes wrote: | a lot of people can identify trees on internet. Just describe | your trees | onetimeuse92304 wrote: | As far as my understanding, nothing much different from what | other plants do. | | Anybody with any experience with home plants will know that for | most plants if you cut off the tip of the plant/branch (places | where new growth happens) it will promote sprouting more branches | in lower parts of the plant. Most plants will have special places | where new growth can happen and experienced florist/gardener can | exploit this to shape the plant to their desire. | | As far as I understand, there is a chemical gradient that causes | nutrients produced in roots to flow to the tips of the plant for | growth. If you cut off the tips, there is no more a place where | the chemicals are used and that abundance -- mismatch between the | large root system and much less ability to consume -- is what | triggers new growth. | | Here, you have an enormous tree with developed root system but | you essentially killed/cut off the upper part. The abundance of | nutrients causes new growth. | blindriver wrote: | I remember when Big Basin south of the Bay Area was on fire in | 2020. The alarmists were talking about how the fires were so | especially intense that the region would never recover. I said at | the time they were all full of hogwash, and there's nothing | particularly special about the fire and it would recover. Heaps | upon heaps of insults were laid upon me. | | Guess what, I was right. Every time humans think they know better | than nature, they are wrong. Humans interpret things like forest | fires as "bad" just like they think rain is "bad" but there's no | good or bad in nature, just cycles, and every time we have the | hubris to think we know better, like trying to stop forest fires, | we are wrong. We need to just step out of the way of Mother | Nature and let her do what she does best, which is continue the | cycle of life for herself. | nly wrote: | You're right but you can probably caveat that with natural | cycles and not man made disasters | spacephysics wrote: | What's more man-made is artificially preventing wildfires so | dead brush builds up then you have a far worse fire. | | Climate change isn't causing wild fires. Wild fires are a | natural part of nature's cycle. What's unnatural is us | artificially delaying these cycles, then they come back 10x | more intense. | | For cases where wild fires are directly caused by people | (arson, bad camping practices), these fires are also more | intense. | | This stuff happens all through the religion of science. I'm | not a religious person, but time and time again the | scientific community cries out "XYZ is bad/stupid/a relic of | religion" then years later there's some scientific evidence | for it and we spend another 5 years pushing back against the | scientific community to change from their old ways. | mistrial9 wrote: | > Climate change isn't causing wild fires. | | I get what you are trying to say, but that statement alone | is too blunt to be accurate. Desertification, extended | drought and record high temperatures do directly relate to | causing fires. | Zetobal wrote: | Scientist don't think they are right or wrong they work with | the data they have and add new data when it comes available | otherwise they are not scientists. Honestly, insane that I have | to say it on HN. | gwervc wrote: | What is your scientific background? Your comment seems naive | and disconnected to what is happening in research labs. | Zetobal wrote: | Not every country fucked up their scientific community like | the US did with their main focus on grants and star power | but even with their educational system kneecapped by | capital the US is still a scientific power house because of | the thousands of people that do honest work and get ignored | by biased and self-righteous comments like yours. | | If you have any insights lay it down on me... | 2devnull wrote: | I'll take the other side here. First, ok you were right in that | the redwoods of big basin seem very healthy right now. I was | swayed personally, as a layperson, by the following argument: | it's possible that current wildfires differ from past wildfires | in heat and intensity because of human factors like climate | change and too much fire suppression. I hope I was NOT one of | the people you felt ridiculed by, my only hope was that the | notion be considered with some seriousness and rigor. It still | seems possible to me that future wildfires operate differently | than those of the past, and I still would favor cautious | conservation policies in that regard. | qup wrote: | What you call "cautious conservatism" is actually playing | fast and loose with the rules, and doing the wrong thing, if | the prescribed burns are actually important. | not2b wrote: | Big Basin is recovering, but it is a long way from recovery. If | there aren't any fires as severe as the CZU fire for many years | it will recover. But if intense fires become more frequent, | that's far less clear. The regrowth you see in Big Basin, as | described in the article, appears to have been fueled by sugar | reserves in the old growth trees. Can they sustain that if they | get hit again and again? | | We have "just cycles" if the climate, on average, is fairly | steady. But if there's a hotter/dryer trend, the areas that can | sustain redwoods will drift north, and this might be difficult | for very long-lived trees to keep up with. | rad_gruchalski wrote: | 300m years ago we had Pangea. I wait for that to recover. | blindriver wrote: | > Big Basin is recovering, but it is a long way from | recovery. | | Define recovery. Do you mean recovery to the point that your | Instagram pictures are as beautiful as before? Or do you mean | that life is thriving and the forest is in its rebuilding | phase? | | > If there aren't any fires as severe as the CZU fire | | How on earth can you get severe fires when the forests don't | have as much fuel as they did before? The entire cycle is | self-limiting. | | > Can they sustain that if they get hit again and again? | | Yes. | shawndrost wrote: | I don't have a stake in the broader fight, but note that | severe fires often leave extra fuel in their wake. (It is a | surprising fact, to me at least.) This is because 1) live | tree trunks don't burn in severe fires, they leave behind | dead trunks (which do burn next time) and 2) the ground | cover that comes up will be more massive than the ground | cover that used to be there. | pvaldes wrote: | >> Can they sustain that if they get hit again and again? | | > Yes | | Let me fix that for you. The correct answer is not. | | A "severe" fire is any wildfire causing severe | consequences. A small bonfire that would kill the last 20 | specimens extant of a flower would be severe, for sure | tomcam wrote: | > Guess what, I was right. | | Not sure if you are physically capable of assessing the | evidence. Everything hinges on how one divides the two words in | your user name ;) | seansh wrote: | I highly recommend the book "The hidden life of trees". It shows | trees in a different light by explaining their behaviors as a | collective, how connected they are, and how they help each other | survive and thrive over thousands of years. Did you know that | trees can recognize their own offsprings? | zakki wrote: | Does tree feel the pain when we cut then? | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | If so, it would be more humane to cut them down as quickly as | possible so as to minimize their suffering. I recommend C4. | roter wrote: | I assume you mean the explosive [0] not the plants [1]. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C4_plants | jksk61 wrote: | yes it is an interesting read, however you should know that | some of their "facts" are highly speculative and some were | proven wrong in the last decade. | chrisweekly wrote: | Anyone interested in trees and/or great writing should read "The | Overstory: A Novel", which earned author Richard Powers a well- | deserved Pulitzer. Highly recommended. | pvaldes wrote: | Lets play to "who can say the most flippant feel-good thing in | biology?". | | The fact that there is not such thing as an 1000-year old bark or | a 1000 year old buds does not matter. The growing part of the | tree is only a few years old, and the buds lie in that part. Old | cork is dead. Old wood is dead; just a bunch of tubes. Cambium is | the alive part. | | I predict that there will be a severe wildfire season in US in | 2024. If you read this articles, you will feel much better about | the loss in any case. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-02 23:00 UTC)