Ancient trees keep forests alive by passing down golden genes
They may make up just one per cent of the world’s tree species, but as it turns out a rare type of ancient tree could be the key to life for forests all over the world.
That’s because a new study suggests that old and ancient trees — which are often more than 10 to 20 times older than the average — help to sustain the trees around them by passing down a hardiness and experience in dealing with change.
These golden genes radically change the genetic diversity and health of the surrounding trees which arrive later on, researchers say, which helps to stop forests dying out and allows them to thrive for thousands of years.
The UK has more ancient trees than many other European countries, with more than 180,000 recorded to date, and some of the oldest living trees are in the US.
The world’s oldest tree can be found in the Fishlake National Forest in Utah, a Quaking Aspen that has been alive for about 80,000 years.
To be classified as ancient it depends on the species — for beech this is from 225 years old, oaks from 400 years and yew 900 years.
Thanks to their genes, these outliers of the tree world weather whatever life throws at them, until one day their luck runs out.
However, according to research by The Morton Arboretum’s Center for Tree Science in Illinois, the longer they do live, the greater the chance they might pass on these vital genes to a new generation.
‘We examined the demographic patterns that emerge from old-growth forests over thousands of years, and a very small proportion of trees emerge as life-history “lottery winners” that reach far higher ages that bridge environmental cycles that span centuries,’ said, botanist Chuck Cannon, from the Morton Arboretum.
‘In our models, these rare, ancient trees prove to be vital to a forest’s long-term adaptive capacity, substantially broadening the temporal span of the population’s overall genetic diversity.’
The researchers used models extrapolated from several previous studies to see how many trees make it beyond the usual boundaries of tree old age.
They then analysed what sort of effect these ancient trees had on the rest of the forest around them.
In some cases, thousands of years of experience can be passed on to the rest of the trees nearby, including younger ones as new seeds are planted.
But it’s not just the genetic and biological diversity of ancient trees that helps them assist the flora around them, they also provide shelter for endangered species and are better at soaking up carbon than younger trees, the experts found.
Through their findings, however, they warned how old an ancient tress are now becoming less common because of ‘climate change’ and deforestation across the globe.
Mortality rates for trees are on the increase across all kinds of woodland.
‘As the climate changes, it is likely that mortality rates in trees will increase, and it will become increasingly difficult for ancient trees to emerge in forests,’ said Cannon.
‘Once you cut down old and ancient trees, we lose the genetic and physiological legacy that they contain forever, as well as the unique habitat for nature conservation.’
The researchers compared the killing off of ancient trees to animal species going extinct — once they’re gone they’re not coming back.
‘This study recalls the urgent need for a global strategy to conserve biodiversity, not only by preserving intact forests, but in particular the small remnant of a few ancient trees that have survived in managed forest landscapes,’ said ecologist Gianluca Piovesan from Tuscia University in Italy.
See more here: dailymail.co.uk
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Howdy
| #
May I suggest you forget the barely useful climate change article and avail yourself of real information on the subject?
Look where James Cameron got the Idea for Avatar’s Mothertree!
From 2014: Do trees communicate?
Also from 2014:
“New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants”
https://theworld.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
What about the fungi?….underground? Don’t they play an important role? And, any truffles found down there is a bonus.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Beside having a talent of making mistakes as I make my comments, I also have common experiences (observations) and knowledge about which it seems the SCIENTISTS at The Morton Arboretum’s Center for Tree Science in Illinois might not consciously be aware. Even though if they read my comment I am confident they would agree with my experiences and knowledge.
To acquire this experience and knowledge it is helpful to have lived in northern Minnesota where a certain aspen trees, commonly known as popular trees grow for no more than a few decades before they die and to have lived in national, state and private forests where the pine tree known as lodge pole pine grow. And I do not know how these pine trees would grow before they are naturally killed in a naturally caused WILDFIRE.
Now it seems a historical fact that these two trees grew and died naturally until maybe two centuries age when humans began harvesting these trees. The aspen trees are clear cut when harvested and within a year or two, new trees sprout up from the ground little more than a foot or two apart. For this special aspen propagate by sending out what I term shallow, horizontal, roots in all direction so that thousands of these terms have the same DNA as the ‘parent’ tree and that some parent tree had long, long ago when the first parent tree sprouted from the ground.
In the case of the lodge pole pine the story is different. It grows cones with seeds which fall to the ground but the seeds do not begin to sprout until the heat of a WILDFIRE melts a coating on the seed which allows the seed to absorb water so the seed can begin to sprout. So these new trees must have the same DNA as their parents who had died.
Some common experiences (observations) to ponder.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Burns Matkin
| #
Before I retired, I was a professional arborist. I have read and re-read this article a few times and can not figure out what in the heck it is trying to say. If “old” trees must pass on their “superior” attributes then the whole idea of evolution is quite dead. I am not arguing for or against evolution. The only thing “old trees” have that is unique is their DNA precedes the “younger” trees DNA and that might make it better? Worse?
This sounds a lot like an excuse for greenie “old growth forest” nonsense we seem to hear a lot about. Not that I want to see old forests gone, its just that the politics ruins everything.
Reply
JFK
| #
Evolution was always dead.
Nature devolves and sometimes adapts by crippling itself, it never evolves.
And I believe you got the idea right:
This is what old trees have so valuable. Their old DNA. Which is unharmed, fully functional and more biodiverse from newer generations. Biodiversity is vital for the survival of a species.
Devolution eliminates biodiversity incredibly fast.
The organisms that remain alive from “natural selection”, are not the “strongest” and “fittest”, but only the ones that happened to survive, either from pure luck or due to some peculiarity in them that gave them some temporary advantage. Even if some of them survived one environmental event, their biodiversity gets diminished dramatically, their adaptability gets exhausted, and their inevitable destiny is extinction.
Newer trees are like broken software that has random corrupted bytes in it. They can crash and burn at any moment. This is why species get extinct. It has nothing to do with global warming or anything like that. Simply put, they are genetically depleted and cannot adapt anymore, since there is no biodiversity is left in their populations. Older trees save those trees by giving them their own genes to keep them alive for a little longer.
Just like a fit person reproducing with another person that has 100 genetic conditions, in order for him to have some chances of producing some healthy offspring. It’s better than having two unfit parents…
Or like trying to find a mate that is not a relative of yours. Because, if he is a relative, existing genetic corruptions become too apparent. Which would not be the case, if our genome was in good shape.
Honestly, genetic algorithms have been simulated on computers for years. Even on 100% ideal conditions, they fail to solve most of the complex problems they are assigned to, and if you try to mimic natural systems (variable conditions and requirements) their final populations are virtually dead in terms of biodiversity. So, it is not only nature that disproves evolution, it is also mathematics and computer science. On top of that, surviving an entire ecosystem is a far more complex set of problems for a genetic algorithm to solve, than what we use genetic algorithms for in computer science. Not to mention that there are no ideal conditions, but only deadly conditions.
Reply
Protestant
| #
Cut them all down for firewood, charcoal, furniture and other useful things! The whole “Green Lungs of the Planet” is a lie, since trees resorb most of the oxygen they produce during the day back into themselves at night. It is GRASSLANDS on the land, and algae in the sea, that produce the most oxygen. The “Tree Worship” propaganda needs to be exposed, because they are really parasitic life forms.
Reply
JFK
| #
Trees are nice.
They are beautiful, colorful, they produce wood for your fireplace, they produce wood for your furniture, they fertilize the soil, they feed animals and humans, they shade, they house animals, they prevent soil corrosion, they break monotony, they reduce noise pollution, they regulate the climate (they do capture CO2, even if you doubt what they do on O2).
You don’t want them gone.
Love your tree-huggers! 😉
(P.S.: I finally replied to the correct comment! This site does not like the email I feed it much and I have to try hard…)
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
In England, there are very old oaks that have a fungus living on the tree’s roots ….the fungus is responsible for the nitrogen that the tree needs and the tree provides some sugars and enzymes that the fungus needs….symbiotic. The fungus sends out threads that extend for hundreds of feet and qualifies the fungus as the largest living thing in the world.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi T.C,
Those who study the aspen of northern Minnesota might disagree with you about the largest living things because as the new trees sprout from a root the root keeps growing longer and longer. And hundred of feet becomes hundreds of yards base upon what I have read.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
JFK
| #
Trees are nice.
They are beautiful, colorful, they produce wood for your fireplace, they produce wood for your furniture, they fertilize the soil, they feed animals and humans, they shade, they house animals, they prevent soil corrosion, they break monotony, they regulate the climate (they do capture CO2, even if you doubt what they do on O2).
You don’t want them gone.
Love your tree-huggers! 😉
Reply
JFK
| #
Trees are nice.
They are beautiful, colorful, they produce wood for your fireplace, they produce wood for your furniture, they fertilize the soil, they feed animals and humans, they shade, they house animals, they prevent soil corrosion, they break monotony, they regulate the climate (they do capture CO2, even if you doubt what they do on O2).
You don’t want them gone.
Love your tree-huggers! 😉
Reply
Jacque L Millard
| #
Leave out the crap about climate change the world is a diverse system that has and always will be a changing climate. And trees need co2 so quit trying to cut off their supply if you want them to live to a ripe old age
Reply
JFK
| #
Agreed! 😉
Reply