[HN Gopher] Giant sequoias are a rapidly growing feature of the ...
___________________________________________________________________
Giant sequoias are a rapidly growing feature of the UK landscape
Author : pseudolus
Score : 128 points
Date : 2024-03-13 10:31 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| hbossy wrote:
| >The tallest tree they found measured about 180 feet tall (54.87
| meters)--giant compared with most native UK species, but dwarfed
| by their American counterparts. I wonder if that have anything to
| do with communicating vessels effect. The really big ones grow in
| the mountains, so I imagine it's easier to pump water that high
| if trees roots can "climb" the slope next to trunk.
| Angostura wrote:
| Well, the oldest Sequoia in the UK are 160 years old. The
| article says they keep up their rapid growth throughout their
| potential lifespan of 3,000 years - so they are babies.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| General Sherman is 2200 years old for example. Which is
| pretty incredible
| timdiggerm wrote:
| Give them time; they're young trees yet.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| This isnt really a factor. The slope may change ground level a
| few feet actross the roots, but even then it would reduce
| height on the uphill side and increase it on the downhill side
| pvaldes wrote:
| "[Each Sequoiadendron tree] can potentially pull an average of 85
| kilograms of carbon out of the atmosphere per year".
|
| I will try to remind this phrase, specially the per year part.
| Fricken wrote:
| Average Per capita annual emissions for UK residents is 5.22
| metric tons, according to Google.
| nvdk wrote:
| So about 65 trees needed per resident, that might still be
| doable? edit: nope, of course being a large tree it also
| needs a lot of land.
| sequoiamwah wrote:
| 65?
| nvdk wrote:
| fixed, ty!
| pvaldes wrote:
| Like public parks maybe?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Or about one air passenger trip to Europe.
|
| ("just plant trees" is not a viable solution to climate change
| unless you can plant a _very large_ number of trees which live
| to maturity)
| enriquto wrote:
| > unless you can plant a very large number of trees which
| live to maturity
|
| and what, then? When plants die, their matter is decomposed
| by fungi and all their carbon is released back into the
| atmosphere (unless the dead plant matter is buried).
|
| The act of planting trees, in itself, is carbon neutral. Not
| good, not bad, just irrelevant to the presence of carbon: the
| carbon is still in the cycle of life within the biosphere.
|
| To reverse the burning of fossil fuels, all that new carbon
| that we introduced into the biosphere needs to be buried back
| to where it came from. For example, by _cutting_ trees and
| burying their wood in sealed mines several kilometers
| underground.
| medstrom wrote:
| I suppose we could do that too, down the line, if we plant
| trees now.
|
| It's at least a method of buying time, but maybe not so
| reliable. It presumes no one will find a way to cut them
| down for profit later. So maybe we'd need to add each tree
| planted to a growing count of trees "never to be cut" in
| the country.
| blincoln wrote:
| > The act of planting trees, in itself, is carbon neutral.
| Not good, not bad, just irrelevant to the presence of
| carbon: the carbon is still in the cycle of life within the
| biosphere.
|
| Isn't this a little like saying that humans in a confined
| space don't actually use up any of the oxygen, because it's
| still technically present in the CO2 they exhale?
|
| > For example, by cutting trees and burying their wood in
| sealed mines several kilometers underground.
|
| What would be the net benefit of treating it like
| radioactive waste versus using it as a construction
| material? Yes, a small percentage of the carbon would
| escape, but most of it would stay locked up in the wood,
| and one wouldn't create the massive amounts of CO2
| necessary to build and operate those hypothetical mines.
| bcatanzaro wrote:
| Generally I agree but Sequoiadendron wood is famously
| unsuitable for construction. It's brittle and shatters
| easily.
|
| Not the same as Sequoia wood, which is famously wonderful
| for construction!
| enriquto wrote:
| > What would be the net benefit of treating it like
| radioactive waste versus using it as a construction
| material?
|
| Man, that was just a silly example to illustrate the
| absurdity of the situation. We are currently unearthing
| millions of years worth of sequestered carbon per year
| and dumping it all into the atmosphere. Talking about
| planting trees is ridiculous at this point. Like pumping
| water out of the sinking titanic with a champagne glass.
| If we don't want to increase the amount of carbon in the
| atmosphere we just need to stop putting it in!
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| You seem to be assuming that the carbon will stay locked
| in the construction materials. But I doubt that it will,
| what will happen to it after the building is destroyed ?
| Either it will have been by fire, or as waste, will
| likely be back in the atmosphere after wood-eating life
| is done with it.
|
| I wonder how feasible it would be to put wood (from
| particularly dense species ?) on the bottom of the
| expanding anoxic ocean zones ? That seems to be one of
| the rare locations where the only thing that could
| possibly degrade it are sulphur-"breathing" bacteria,
| which seem to have trouble digesting lignin ?
|
| But even here, it might still be easier to just stop
| burning fossil fuels ? EDIT : ninjaed
|
| P.S.: For an opposite example, see how concrete reabsorbs
| over decades back up to half of the CO2 exhaled during
| its production.
|
| P.P.S.: Supposedly, soil-buried charcoal is also decently
| stable, I guess even fungi find it unpalatable ??
| HPsquared wrote:
| All the work involved in felling, cutting and manually
| sequestering the wood sounds like it could be more
| expensive - and a lot slower and less scalable - than
| direct air capture. (Which is already uneconomical)
| omnibrain wrote:
| > and what, then? When plants die, their matter is
| decomposed by fungi and all their carbon is released back
| into the atmosphere (unless the dead plant matter is
| buried).
|
| Why does every measure have to solve the problem? Buying
| time is just as important. We start mammoth groves now. Buy
| time for measures that solve the problem and win huge
| ressources (building wood, recreational space, erosion
| prevention) for the future.
| mapt wrote:
| It's not "Mammoth groves" if you want to meaningfully
| "buy time". A grove is an open tree stand a few acres
| wide. That's not what we're talking about. It's not
| adding a little bit of tree seed to unused spaces. It's
| inverting our footprint entirely.
|
| It's planting the entirety of the UK, every year,
| indefinitely. It's employing a few million people with
| heavy machinery to walk from one side of the planet to
| the other and bulldoze every farmhouse they find, leaving
| behind mixed saplings at a wide spacing in the fields.
|
| It's just way easier to decarbonize most of our society
| than it is to spend the land on forest carbon fixation.
| It's a lot of land, more land than we'd ever agree to
| dedicate.
|
| And I would point out that planting trees and then
| sequestering that carbon periodically with charcoal
| production is by far the easiest way. Every other
| technique is ten or a hundred or a thousand times lower
| payoff.
|
| If you want to slow things down, you have to mostly stop
| burning fossil fuels. We need to tax the hell out of
| them, we need to shut down new projects, we need to
| electrify anything feasible, we need to heavily subsidize
| and aggressively plan for rapidly scaling renewables.
| When we're at a 90% reduction in fossil fuel usage, then
| we can re-assess priorities because we've both "bought
| some time" and eliminated all the low-hanging fruit
| that's easier than deliberate carbon fixation projects.
|
| More likely, we'll keep on steamrolling ahead, and
| something like sulfur geoengineering will be put forward
| as a way to stave off the worst effects for a while.
| vaylian wrote:
| And you need to make sure that the wood doesn't have a chance
| to decompose after the tree dies.
| pvaldes wrote:
| We will left that task for people living 800 years on the
| future.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > unless you can plant a very large number of trees which
| live to maturity
|
| And this is technologically a big problem because...? Dig a
| hole and put a seed and pay somebody to watch it for several
| years is too difficult when our societies are at stake?
|
| Because some people can't avoid to satisfy their chomp-burn-
| boycott-my-own-future rash?... No problem. This people needs
| mental help, and society can provide it. Keep them far away
| from nature.
|
| Ecological systems don't show linear responses. Tiny
| increases or decreases in a variable can trigger huge
| changes. Even a partial improvement counts. In the worst case
| could give us a lot of extra time to have a second chance to
| try.
|
| Planting trees will not mean that we will survive, just that
| our chances to survive will increase. It still seems a
| valuable goal.
| badcppdev wrote:
| One passenger trip to Europe from where? It's the internet.
| No one knows where you live!
| science4sail wrote:
| > We found that UK redwoods are well adapted to the UK and able
| to capture a large amount of carbon dioxide.
|
| Are the UK's giant sequoias predominately naturally-grown or
| human-planted? If the trees successfully adapt their reproduction
| cycle to the UK, then I imagine that they could become a new
| invasive (albeit easy-to-cull) species.
| Sybs wrote:
| They are all planted by people, they cannot reproduce in the UK
| because they need wildfires and more sun.
| DrBazza wrote:
| BBC version of same article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
| environment-68518623
|
| > An estimated 500,000 trees are in the UK compared to 80,000 in
| California.
|
| > To assess how these towering giants are adapting to their UK
| home, scientists selected a sample of nearly 5,000 trees to study
| at Wakehurst, Benmore Botanic Garden in Argyllshire, Scotland and
| Havering Country Park in Essex.
|
| > However, while the trees are doing well in the UK, there's
| little chance of them taking over our native forests any time
| soon - they're not reproducing here as they need very specific
| conditions to take seed.
|
| I'm curious about the final statement - the article goes to great
| lengths to emphasize the similarity in conditions, so I wonder
| what would be missing that would prevent sequoias from
| reproducing. And to quote a phrase 'life, uh, finds a way'.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Interesting. I've seen the ones at Wakehurst, a lot were lost
| during the 1987 hurricane.
|
| I wouldn't worry about rogue trees, pretty much all UK forest
| is to some extent "curated", even the historic old growth
| places. And they're not exactly hard to see.
| dbingham wrote:
| They require wild fires to reproduce:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron_giganteum
| lukan wrote:
| "the seeds only being able to grow successfully in full sun and
| in mineral-rich soils, free from competing vegetation. Although
| the seeds can germinate in moist needle humus in the spring,
| these seedlings will die as the duff dries in the summer. They
| therefore require periodic wildfire to clear competing
| vegetation and soil humus before successful regeneration can
| occur" (Wikipedia)
|
| They need fire and sun. (And maybe also cold winters). Britain
| does not have that.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| me m8 dave can provide the fire so long as the old bill
| doesn't find out about it (lad's on magistrate's orders to
| not have matches)
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| OI wherz ur matches loicense!?
| pvaldes wrote:
| > these seedlings will die as the duff dries in the summer
|
| Again the myth of Prometheus, "they need fire, burn, burn,
| burn"... Yawn.
|
| may die --On California-- UK is a little more humid.
|
| Sequoiadendron grows happy in most temperate areas,
| including most of Spain. Segovia has some of the tallest
| trees out of USA, and is a hot place on summer. We have
| also a few small Sequioadendron forests on the North of
| Spain since 1950 or even in Granada since 1870. Some
| Sequioa sempervirens live even in Jaen
|
| (and they don't need fire at all, because gardeners do all
| the work of taking care for the saplings).
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Side note, but the Sugi tree of Japan is perhaps the most
| similar tree to the Sequoia in terms of appearance.
| acchow wrote:
| Do these redwoods in Spain also reproduce naturally?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| perhaps the seedlings can be cultivated manually then, until
| they can survive without intervention - then they should last
| a long time.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well yeah, I mean that's nothing new - it's called a tree
| nursery. But, as the BBC article states, the chances of
| them reproducing _in the wild_ are slim...
| darkr wrote:
| If we've learned anything from Jurassic Park, it's that
| life...finds a way
| xeromal wrote:
| I think that's the point of this post. They're manually
| cared for until they survive but they don't have to worry
| about them reproducing. Kind of a nice feature!
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The Wikipedia page says that in the wild they usually require
| wildfires to clear the land and allow the sequoias' seeds to
| germinates, and the seeds are also fussy:
|
| " _Although the seeds can germinate in moist needle humus in
| the spring, these seedlings will die as the duff dries in the
| summer. They therefore require periodic wildfire to clear
| competing vegetation and soil humus before successful
| regeneration can occur. Without fire, shade-loving species will
| crowd out young sequoia seedlings, and sequoia seeds will not
| germinate_ ". [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron_giganteum
| mc32 wrote:
| I hate when they do apples and oranges comparisons; it renders
| it almost useless:
|
| "There are an estimated half a million redwoods in the UK...
| fewer than 80,000 giant sequoias remaining in their native
| California range."
|
| generic redwoods in UK 500,000, specific giant sequoias in
| Calif 80,000. It does not say how many specific giant sequoias
| there are in the UK.
| bcatanzaro wrote:
| It also doesn't say how many giant sequoias are in CA. They
| do grow when planted in CA as well outside their native
| range. The native giant sequoias live on a tiny fraction of
| CA's area, maybe 1%.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Also, does this mean that all the 500k trees have been planted?
| tokai wrote:
| 3128 hectares were planted with trees in UK just last year.
| Remember that trees are a crop, and most forests in Europe
| are plantations.
|
| https://forestrycommission.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/16/england-
| tr...
| rob74 wrote:
| Trees are a crop, but the very slow growing sequoias are
| more of a status symbol (as the article also mentions). And
| not only in the UK, many parks, botanical gardens etc. all
| over Europe just _have_ to have at least one sequoia...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| but the number quoted for the UK includes the costal
| redwood, which IS one of the most popular farmed woods.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| There have to be more than 80k in the US. Maybe they're just
| counting mature large trees? The groves are full of saplings
| and "teenagers".
| m-i-l wrote:
| There are pictures and locations of many at
| https://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/ . See also HN discussion of
| redwoodworld.co.uk at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28047458 . (Not affiliated,
| but I did submit details of my local sequoias).
| julian_t wrote:
| It's missing my local one here in Surrey, where someone has one
| growing in their rather small front garden. Such a huge tree in
| such a small space - I wonder which one came first. Anyway,
| thanks for making me aware of this, I'll go and add it.
| yitchelle wrote:
| I noticed that redwoodworld.co.uk had saplings for sale. Very
| intriguing.
| Lio wrote:
| Yes I agree.
|
| I love Giant Sequoias and have fantasised many times about
| purchasing a sapling to guerilla plant in my local woods.
| I've never quite found the perfect spot to do it though.
| secondcoming wrote:
| If you'd like more of a challenge, I bought seeds from here:
| https://superlativetrees.com/
| secondcoming wrote:
| I purchased some Giant Sequoia seeds last year and only
| germinated them this year. Only two survived but I've no idea if
| they're doing well. If they do survive my plan is to plant them
| somewhere in the Scottish highlands.
|
| I also have some Coastal Redwood and Dawn Redwood seeds but none
| of those germinated. I think I kept them in storage for too long.
| I might give them another shot.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I read about guerilla gardening recently and childishly thought
| it would be funny to plant Giant Sequoia saplings here and
| there.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Dawn Redwoods prefer hot humid summers and cold winters, like
| you'd see in NE Asia or the East Coast of the US.
| treprinum wrote:
| Now re-forest the whole Scottish Highlands please...
| pvaldes wrote:
| Even better
| throwway120385 wrote:
| The haggis requires very specific ecological conditions for its
| eggs to mature.
| jjgreen wrote:
| So adorable when they hatch ...
| arethuza wrote:
| That's the goal of Trees For Life: https://treesforlife.org.uk/
| pjc50 wrote:
| Somewhat disputed as to whether this is a good idea, but
| there's definitely plans to expand non-plantation "natural"
| forest for the ecosystem benefits. Main problem is the deer.
| smcl wrote:
| This is something that's a slow and steady ongoing process -
| increasing from 5% to 17% cover between the years ~1900-2000
| with the aim being 21% coverage by 2032[0]. I don't know what
| is the "right" rate of afforestation is, whether it's going too
| slowly or whatever, but it's not something that's completely
| abandoned.
|
| [0] - https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-
| man...
| openrisk wrote:
| The introduction of non-native tree species is not without its
| own controversies as these may support very different
| biodiversity landscapes.
|
| In central Europe there is, e.g., a debate about the role and
| future of the Douglas fir, which was also introduced from North
| America centuries ago:
|
| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.84458...
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| I remember walking around Switzerland a few summers ago and was
| surprised to see that most of the tallest trees in the towns
| and parks were non-native American trees.
| nuc1e0n wrote:
| Is the timber they produce good quality for building with? I
| might like to invest in sequoia farms for carbon capture credits
| then timber later on.
| simonsarris wrote:
| The wood is somewhat brittle. When they felled lots of them in
| the US 100 years ago, the loggers found to their great
| disappointment little use for the resulting wood, and turned
| most of the giant trees into... matchsticks, and that sort of
| scrap thing.
|
| Possibly the trees can be harvested more delicately today,
| though.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| They cut down trees that were 10+ feet wide to make
| matchsticks? That makes the whole affair even more
| disappointing.
| api_or_ipa wrote:
| Fiddlesticks.
|
| Redwoods are a fabulous building material. If you're in the
| Bay Area, go check your houses joists. Quite a number of old
| houses here are made of redwood. AFAIK it makes a great wood
| for joists and structures because it it's resistant to pests.
| My nearly 100 year old house's joists are in fantastic
| condition. Big, beautiful beams, nearly completely clear and
| free from knots.
|
| The reason it's rarely used today is because we've cut down
| all the good trees and it's wildly uneconomical to grow
| compared to cheaper woods.
| bink wrote:
| I even lived in a house with a redwood frame in Hawaii. It
| was great for resisting termites.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| > Fiddlesticks
|
| After some brief research, it seems that most any wood can
| be used, so it's possible there were redwood bows made
| sometime. The preferred wood is pernambuco. (From the
| Brazilian paubrasilia echinata tree, now an endangered
| species so difficult to get new sticks from.) Other popular
| types are snakewood, sandalwood (cheap), and brazilwood
| (cheaper). But lately the trend is to use carbon fiber
| which has become less expensive than wooden bows of the
| same quality.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Coast redwoods have useful timber but Sequoias do not.
| boringg wrote:
| Its a beautiful but quite soft wood.
| Balgair wrote:
| I'm not a carpenter, but my old house was built out of redwood.
|
| Never had a problem with it and redwood keeps most of the pests
| and bugs out. I think that's due to all the tannin in the wood.
| dhosek wrote:
| The question is which redwood. I think the lumber redwood are
| the coastal redwoods and not the giant sequoias.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| You are correct. The former are excellent quality timber,
| the latter are quite poor.
| Balgair wrote:
| Yep, most likely coastal ones for my former house. The
| house was built in the 40s, I know they were doing a lot
| of logging up the coast back then about that time.
| digging wrote:
| Would you wait until they're mature? Good to have a multi-
| millennium business plan.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I once took a biology class from a guy who researched giant
| sequoias. Giant sequoia cones are serotinous, which means that
| fire on the forest floor causes them to dry out, which opens and
| releases their seeds. Without fire, the seed won't reach the
| earth.
| daveslash wrote:
| _" There are an estimated half a million -->redwoods<-- in the UK
| and more are being planted, partly due to their public appeal. In
| the wild, they are endangered with fewer than 80,000 -->giant
| sequoias<-- remaining in their native California range."_ (arrows
| mine)
|
| Giant Sequoias ( _Sequoiadendron giganteum_ ) and Coast Redwoods
| ( _Sequoia sempervirens_ ) are two different trees!
|
| Note: It seems that my California nomenclature uses "Redwood" to
| refer _specifically_ to Coast Redwoods, whereas other regions use
| "Redwood" to refer to all 3 species of Sequoioideae (Coast
| Redwood, Giant Sequoia, and Dawn Redwoods"). Also, funnily
| enough, Coast Redwoods are of the genius _" Sequoia"_, whereas
| Giant Sequoia are of the genus _" Sequoiadendron"_
|
| I've long been aware of a thriving population of S. Sempervirens
| (Coast Redwoods)[1] and a non-zero population of S. Giganteum,
| but such a thriving population of S. Giganteum is new to me.
|
| The article focuses specifically on S. giganteum, but the
| references to "redwoods" throw me off.... I'm sure it's accurate,
| but I'm going to have to read the source paper.
|
| For those in Southern California, there's a grove of Giant
| Sequoia's on Mount San Jacinto that were planted in the 70's by
| the Forest Service. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/locations.htm
|
| [2] https://gizmodo.com/these-sequoia-trees-are-
| thriving-175-mil...
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Coast Redwoods are of the genius "Seqoia",
|
| on the genus _Sequoia_
| daveslash wrote:
| Typo on my part. Fixed. Thank you. Take my upvote.
| ndonnellan wrote:
| Portland, OR (NW Oregon in general) also has a lot of planted
| Giant Sequoias! So it may not be strictly true that they are
| super picky. I imagine as climate warms, the PNW will become a
| better spot for Sequoias. Unfortunately at the cost of trees
| that like it cooler and wetter e.g. Western Red Cedars.
|
| I would plant one, but their trunks get huge quickly, and I see
| a lot of busted sidewalks around here due to that.
|
| https://www.portland.gov/trees/sequoiadendron-giganteum
| zwieback wrote:
| Yeah, we have a lot of both in Corvallis, neither are great
| city trees but look great in parks etc. My neighbor across
| the street has a Sequoia and the electric company is
| constantly chopping out massive sections to keep the power
| lines safe.
|
| Redwoods look nicer, in my opinion, but have a bad habit of
| sprouting like crazy at the base.
| hinkley wrote:
| Western Red Cedar is remarkably polite about foundations and
| sidewalks for such a massive tree.
|
| Even black walnut is more of a "fuck this sidewalk, and fuck
| you too" kind of tree.
|
| Current owner of a fucked sidewalk, former owner of a WRC
| planted way too close to a house.
| wffurr wrote:
| My kids and I watched a cute short show on Nat Geo titled Giant
| Sequoias vs Coastal Redwoods that goes into this exact
| distinction: https://youtu.be/Hmhb2vmEnvA?feature=shared
| plopz wrote:
| The story of the dawn redwoods is pretty interesting. Found in
| the fossil record, thought to be extinct, but then in the 40s a
| grove was found in china and seeds shipped all over the place.
| Now theres a bunch of cities planting them along sidewalks
| including nyc. Although sadly now it seems like the grove in
| china is having issues.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Yeah, they're great trees on the east coast because they
| provide shade in the summer but drop their leaves in the
| winter when shaded dark streets are less desirable.
| russdill wrote:
| Also in the LA area is a great grove of coastal redwoods:
| https://www.outdoorproject.com/united-states/california/redw...
| dhosek wrote:
| I remember going to Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Park back in
| the '00s and when we got to the altitude where the sequoia groves
| existed and I caught a glance of one off to the side, I was so
| transfixed by how amazing it looked I almost drove off the road.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Invasive species?
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Related question I've always had: does anyone know why trees on
| the west coast of the US and Canada grow so tall? You'll find the
| tallest species of fir (douglas fir _or_ if you 're being
| pedantic the grand fir), pine (sugar pine), hemlock (western
| hemlock) and cedar (western red cedar) as well as the redwood
| species. Other places with similar climate grow tall trees but
| nearly so high. Is it something about the climate or are forests
| here just full of highly evolved specimens involved in an arms
| race?
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| There's a couple factors.
|
| A big one is that the North American Pacific coast was just one
| the last places to get significant settlement, so we didn't cut
| down all the big trees like we did elsewhere. Appalachia, for
| instance, used to have its share of giant trees. But those
| trees are still dwarfed by the sequoias.
|
| The West Coast's wet-dry spells lead to more forest fires,
| presenting another evolutionary pressure on tree height. Tall
| trees put their canopies far enough away from the flames that
| fires can sweep through the undergrowth without ever reaching
| them.
|
| There's also the fact that we have one of the most mild
| climates in the world: wild temperature fluctuations cause
| difficulties in getting water up tall trunks.
|
| Finally, there's the fog that keeps the canopies moist.
| physicsguy wrote:
| At Chatsworth House not far from where I live there's a 'pinetum'
| (which was a word I'd never heard before) which has quite a few
| redwoods planted in Victorian times.
| cushpush wrote:
| Having done a research report on redwoods years ago during summer
| language school, I learned that giant trees once covered all of
| North America and Europe.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| On the subject of giant imported trees liking the UK, the tallest
| trees in the UK are a group of Douglas Firs in Wales, near Betws-
| Y-Coed
|
| https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/heightrecords/gbr/
|
| I don't recall being in Betws when it wasn't raining, if that
| helps explain it.
| axxl wrote:
| Funnily enough my one trip there was absolutely gorgeous
| weather with no rain.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is a very pretty area, well worth a trip. You can watch
| salmon jump if you time your trip well
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-13 23:00 UTC)