What limits a species life?

[Bren.]

The subject of immortal trees is an interesting one, think I read somewhere that some of the oldest trees in existence today were seeded not long after the last glacial ice age finished, some 10k years ago. I wonder if they were looked after and protected from disease and outside influences if they'd carry on until the next ice age?

We have some Aspen on one of the reserves I work on (an ancient woodland site in Norfolk) we've had a few people come and look at them and say that they could be the oldest organism on the reserve, being suckers from trees which first established soon after the last glaciation event.

[woodyguy]

Glad you like it!

[treeseer]

Bren, your impressions of the US are remarkably skewed--where are you getting your info? When I visit Europe people wonder why I don't have my guns with me...sheesh!

Trees are potentially immortal, if people treat them right (or in some cases, don't treat them at all)

 

Rejuvenation of a tree’s physiology slows down its aging clock.

This is best seen in trees that grow on stressful environments, like

mountaintops. Among trees, some adversity can promote longevity.

Recovery from damage enhances dignity in veteran trees, as they

demonstrate endurance. As noted by Peter del Tredici of Harvard

University (Cambridge, MA), “Pruning does it by inducing the growth

of younger meristems, shortening the internal transport path, and

balancing shoot load and activity with limited root activity and

support. In trees, physiological and developmental aging operate

independently. They can be simultaneously embryonic and senile,

resulting in a form of ecological immortality. It is this potential for

immortality that makes trees so fascinating to work with.”

In his 2008 keynote talk at ISA’s international convention, canopy

researcher Steve Sillett issued a challenge to arborists around the

world. (The 2010 conference will be keynoted by another electrifying

canopy researcher, Nalini Nadkarni.) Sillett’s assignment to us,

echoed by most tree owners, is to apply arboricultural approaches

to maintain stability, sustain contributions, and extend longevity.

Restoration pruning follows trees’ tendencies to optimally harvest

sunlight, which along with soil improvement can produce upward

spirals of recovery. Trees are resilient; after all, they grow in urban

soils and air, surviving damage from saws, storms, and the strains

and insults of aging and living with people. By discovering and

collaborating with trees’ abilities to sustain themselves, we can meet

Sillett’s challenge, and further our facilitation of the coexistence of

people and trees, one branch at a time.

[Bren.]

Not sure it as skewed as you think it is. the fact that you have elected officials over there who think that promoting the teaching of creationism in schools will win them votes, is frankly, very scarey.

The fact that in some places, pupils who protest about the teaching of creationism as science in the classroom, are persecuted by the school and their fellow pupils, terrifying.

I do accept that many Americans find this ridiculous, but many also find it acceptable and even desirable.

I fear that if we want to look for the next global hotspot of religious fundamentalism, then America is where we should be looking.

The new anti-science assault on US schools | Katherine Stewart | Science | theguardian.com

As for your guns. Doesn't bother me at all. Everybody knows you guys can't shoot straight.

[treeseer]

"I fear that if we want to look for the next global hotspot of religious fundamentalism, then America is where we should be looking."

 

Put your fears to rest. There've been no beheadings here, just noise. In most countries they lack the freedom to have these loud conversations, and the curriculum is handed down from above. On what level are these decisions made in the UK?

For certain, England seems like a global hotspot for anti-religious Darwinism.

 

The concept of 'tree lifespan' is riddled with assumptions and conditions, nature AND nurture. It depends.

Edited December 26, 2014 by treeseer

[Big J]

For certain, England seems like a global hotspot for anti-religious Darwinism.

 

If there was such a country of 'Anti religious Darwinism', I'd be filing my papers for emigration to this land of logic and common sense first thing tomorrow.

 

The thread is being rapidly derailed. A new thread entitled Creationism versus Evolution could be started, but given this is mainly a UK forum, it could be quite one sided!

[woodyguy]

If only it was a hotspot for "anti-religious Darwinism". It has an established religion, Bishops sitting in the House of Lords and a powerful church lobby last time I looked.

[Big J]

If only it was a hotspot for "anti-religious Darwinism". It has an established religion, Bishops sitting in the House of Lords and a powerful church lobby last time I looked.

 

I'm pretty sure that Sweden is regarded as the least religious place in the world. With lots of trees, Gransfors axes and the native blonde lady population perhaps I should emigrate!

[Bren.]

Whilst we do have a number of academics who have become fervently anti-religious, I think on the whole you will find a society that begrudges no man his religion.

Personally, I do feel that the religious right in the USA holds too much power. I also recognise that many of the people of America find the teaching of creationism/Intelligent Design as dangerous as I do.

When faith blinds a person to all other thinking then all intellectual activity becomes endangered, especially when those people of faith hold positions of power.

[se7enthdevil]

i find it quite ironic that religious extremists get themselves killed for their beliefs and leave the gene pool full of people with more common sense.

 

that's natural selection in my opinion...