If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   And thus began the conquest of six countries by the invasive giant redwood army, leaving skeletons of kangaroos a hundred feet in the air   (usatoday.com) divider line 80
    More: Strange, sequoia, reforestation, Crescent City, planting, skeletons, SSTs, whales, trees  
•       •       •

13581 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2013 at 2:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-22 01:40:22 PM  
Farking clones. Next it'll be sheep.
 
2013-04-22 02:20:36 PM  
What the fark are you talking about?
 
2013-04-22 02:21:11 PM  
I'm okay with this
 
2013-04-22 02:21:53 PM  
APPROVES:

advanced-television.com
 
2013-04-22 02:25:02 PM  
It's a worthwhile effort, if for no other reason than to make giant trees happen. I'm for it.
 
2013-04-22 02:26:25 PM  
You know, redwoods aren't the only NorCal flora known to invade other regions...

Right, dude?

www.gannett-cdn.com
 
2013-04-22 02:27:07 PM  
18" trees?  What is this?  A forest for ants?
 
2013-04-22 02:28:18 PM  
We have farking eucalyptus all over Northern CA, so the least we could do is return the favor.
 
2013-04-22 02:28:26 PM  
approves
thainsbook.net
 
2013-04-22 02:28:29 PM  
is it possible that the poor things got tangled in the saplings and starved, and then the trees grew up around them?
 
2013-04-22 02:29:59 PM  
also approves
thetorchonline.com
 
2013-04-22 02:30:49 PM  
SAY NO TO GMO!
 
2013-04-22 02:33:01 PM  
While I like the idea of the big trees, wouldn't faster growing trees be a better option? Part of the reason the trees live so long is because they grow slowly.

So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?
 
2013-04-22 02:33:12 PM  
"long-lived" != best, or even best for its ecosystem. It's ecological ignoramuses like this who have farked up ecosystems with invasive species in their efforts to "help". Frankly I'm amazed that they've got permission to plant these in some of the countries mentioned where they have incredibly tight restrictions on non-native species. New Zealand, for example, is already being overrun but introduced pines. It's reforesting where it was never forested before and the native animals are not adapted to it. New Zealand also already has a native giant tree: the kauri. So they're going to run that into extinction with an introduced tree?

Not to mention that forests everywhere might not actually be the solution, and that grasslands and wetlands might be a better idea for a lot of places.

Idiots.
 
2013-04-22 02:35:30 PM  
images2.cosmicbooknews.com
Also approves
 
2013-04-22 02:36:10 PM  
I should have said "best for the ecosystem you're introducing it to". The giant redwoods have an ecosystem already, and that's where they should be encouraged.

I also should have said "by introduced pines".
 
2013-04-22 02:37:21 PM  

Slives: While I like the idea of the big trees, wouldn't faster growing trees be a better option? Part of the reason the trees live so long is because they grow slowly.

So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?


This idea isn't about doing actual good.  It's symbolic.  Like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs.
 
2013-04-22 02:40:17 PM  
Kudzu on an absolutely galactic scale...
 
2013-04-22 02:41:59 PM  
came for Groot, left satisfied.

/I AM GROOT!
 
2013-04-22 02:42:08 PM  

Slives: So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?


Depends on whether you want the tree to be around in 25 years or 1000.
 
2013-04-22 02:43:48 PM  

Slives: While I like the idea of the big trees, wouldn't faster growing trees be a better option? Part of the reason the trees live so long is because they grow slowly.

So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?


I'm no tree-talking guy, but I have a Coast Redwood in my yard that I grew from about thumb-sized.  I started 5 1/2 years ago and it's no less than 8' tall, and very bushy.

I don't know how fast that is compared to others...All I know is that it grows a hell of a lot faster than the Japanese Maple I planted at the same time.  It was about a foot tall, now it's about two feet tall.
 
2013-04-22 02:49:29 PM  
Step one: plant 18"redwood tree
step two: wait 300 years
step three: turn sequestered carbon into fashionable and resilient deck material.
 
2013-04-22 02:54:00 PM  
www.gannett-cdn.com
Dude, let's smoke it.
 
2013-04-22 02:54:08 PM  
Redwoods grow quite quickly in the right conditions.  However they stay within a fairly narrow environmental range, and they need things like fog to grow to great height.
 
2013-04-22 02:55:40 PM  

FLMountainMan: Slives: While I like the idea of the big trees, wouldn't faster growing trees be a better option? Part of the reason the trees live so long is because they grow slowly.

So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?

This idea isn't about doing actual good.  It's symbolic.  Like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs.


This, want to help reforest an area in 20 years? Plant pine trees except pine trees are ugly, messy, and common.
 
2013-04-22 02:55:54 PM  

texdent: [images2.cosmicbooknews.com image 300x660]
Also approves


How does tree dude put on or take off that snazzy uniform?
 
2013-04-22 02:56:37 PM  
Trees grow from the top.  A nail hammered into the trunk of a tree with be at the same height 200 years later.

The nail will not move up the tree as it grows.

SCIENCE!
 
2013-04-22 02:56:51 PM  
I think that most of the redwoods in northern California are second growth trees except for isolated areas like Muir Woods.
 
2013-04-22 03:00:40 PM  

Evil High Priest: texdent: [images2.cosmicbooknews.com image 300x660]
Also approves

How does tree dude put on or take off that snazzy uniform?


Uh...unstable molecules?
 
2013-04-22 03:02:53 PM  

KWillets: Redwoods grow quite quickly in the right conditions.  However they stay within a fairly narrow environmental range, and they need things like fog to grow to great height.


This. The ring thicknesses on some of the coastal redwood stumps are HUGE.
 
2013-04-22 03:04:08 PM  

ruta: Frankly I'm amazed that they've got permission to plant these in some of the countries mentioned where they have incredibly tight restrictions on non-native species.


The article did not mention anything about getting permission.
They're going to do good, whether it kills someone or not.
 
2013-04-22 03:04:47 PM  

dryknife: I think that most of the redwoods in northern California are second growth trees except for isolated areas like Muir Woods.


And Humboldt Redwoods, and Prairie Creek, and Jedediah Smith.  Had to mention those because I worked at them ;)  Other, much smaller groves of old growth exist.

But most of what exists is second growth.  Areas that were logged in the late 1800s/early 1900s still have damn tall trees, just not in the 350'+ range.
 
2013-04-22 03:11:51 PM  
Shouldn't they use baobabs?
 
2013-04-22 03:21:45 PM  
This is pretty stupid. I mean, having giant sequoias here and there to look at is cool, but it's not going to do much actual good. If you're trying to sequester carbon, it's probably better to have a plant community that grows fast, dies fast and is buried fast, rather than extremely long-lived trees. This is beyond the fact that they're not native, though that's probably less of a concern with sequoias due to (what I assume is) a narrow environmental tolerance range.

/better than pavement
 
2013-04-22 03:26:31 PM  
FTA: said Tom Burke, landscape manager at the College of Marin. "We've had redwoods in this area since God planted them."

Meth Addict says what?

/Please don't mix science and religion, otherwise you end up with a Monsanto corporation preaching that food with its own insecticide is good for people when its not.
//YumYum. These food tastes awesome with all the roundup still on it.
 
2013-04-22 03:34:07 PM  
California redwood invading the world? So like... Navajo interracial gay porn?
 
2013-04-22 03:34:56 PM  
There's no problem with planting redwoods and sequoias in Australia; we'll just send them some rabbits to keep the tree population under control.
 
2013-04-22 03:41:13 PM  
I came for a Far Side cartoon, leaving disappointed.
 
2013-04-22 03:58:43 PM  
thebrandrackley.files.wordpress.com
Also approves
 
2013-04-22 04:00:22 PM  

puckrock2000: There's no problem with planting redwoods and sequoias in Australia; we'll just send them some rabbits to keep the tree population under control.


And a few snakes will help keep the rabbit population down.  I think Florida has a few to spare.
 
2013-04-22 04:05:02 PM  

WelldeadLink: ruta: Frankly I'm amazed that they've got permission to plant these in some of the countries mentioned where they have incredibly tight restrictions on non-native species.

The article did not mention anything about getting permission.
They're going to do good, whether it kills someone or not.


I'm all for planting trees, but for cryin' out loud, plant the stuff that's supposed to grow there in the first place... and ask permission first, or someone's just going to come along and rip it out anyway.
 
2013-04-22 04:09:19 PM  
Fun fact:  100 years ago or so, Australia had trees taller than any existing Redwoods today.
 
2013-04-22 04:21:40 PM  

FLMountainMan: Slives: While I like the idea of the big trees, wouldn't faster growing trees be a better option? Part of the reason the trees live so long is because they grow slowly.

So wouldn't you want to use something that gets to a good size in 20 years rather than 200?

This idea isn't about doing actual good.  It's symbolic.  Like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs.


This.

Emotional "feel good" thinking.
 
2013-04-22 04:42:53 PM  

FLMountainMan: SAY NO TO GMO!


Cloning isn't GMO. All your organic apples are clones from parent specimen.
 
2013-04-22 04:54:10 PM  
"We need to reforest the planet; it's imperative. To do that, it just makes sense to use the largest, oldest, most iconic trees that ever lived," Milarch said.

So you pick one of the slowest maturing species on the planet?

img.groundspeak.com

Teddy Roosevelt planted this tree in 1903.

/I know, I know, poor growing conditions, etc...but still...find an endangered native species and bring that farker back
/I know, I know, global warming changing native environment to inhospitable...but still...
 
2013-04-22 05:05:09 PM  
LockeOak:

If you're trying to sequester carbon, it's probably better to have a plant community that grows fast, dies fast and is buried fast, rather than extremely long-lived trees.

Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.

In fact, the best balance might be: plant a bunch of useful, fast growing wood that you can build lasting structures out of, prevent the wood from rotting and get some use out of it at the same time.
 
2013-04-22 05:22:47 PM  
We see redwoods

amarkedman.com
 
2013-04-22 05:42:52 PM  

maxheck: LockeOak:

If you're trying to sequester carbon, it's probably better to have a plant community that grows fast, dies fast and is buried fast, rather than extremely long-lived trees.

Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.

In fact, the best balance might be: plant a bunch of useful, fast growing wood that you can build lasting structures out of, prevent the wood from rotting and get some use out of it at the same time.


I'm arguing your latter point, and you don't need sequoias for that. That said, planting a few in urban parks would be cool, but arguing that a handful of sequoias are sequestering meaningful amounts of carbon is a bit silly.
 
2013-04-22 05:55:55 PM  

LockeOak: maxheck: LockeOak:

If you're trying to sequester carbon, it's probably better to have a plant community that grows fast, dies fast and is buried fast, rather than extremely long-lived trees.

Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.

In fact, the best balance might be: plant a bunch of useful, fast growing wood that you can build lasting structures out of, prevent the wood from rotting and get some use out of it at the same time.

I'm arguing your latter point, and you don't need sequoias for that. That said, planting a few in urban parks would be cool, but arguing that a handful of sequoias are sequestering meaningful amounts of carbon is a bit silly.


I agree... but would also say that planting short-lived "junk" trees doesn't do anything for the carbon balance if they're left to rot. Converting them to paper products is the same so far as carbon, but at least we get *some* use from it.

/ In my darker moments at work I think of saying "fark this, I'm quitting and starting a structural bamboo farm."
 
2013-04-22 06:02:36 PM  
"A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10 "

If only there were some type of wood that was naturally rot resistant.
 
2013-04-22 06:54:13 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: 18" trees?  What is this?  A forest for ants?


So they can be trampled by dwarfs?
 
2013-04-22 07:29:23 PM  

Oldiron_79: Plant Rights Activist: 18" trees?  What is this?  A forest for ants?

So they can be trampled by dwarfs?


Spinal tap was in charge of the project.
 
2013-04-22 07:31:45 PM  
how 'bout we start exporting these babies?

img.groundspeak.com
 
2013-04-22 07:46:12 PM  

maxheck: Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.


Or bear with me -- we plant 2000 pine trees, and log them out a dozen times over those thousand years.

If you really want a carbon sink you want muskeg. The natural cycle of small wetland areas being perpetuated by beavers and the slow succession filling in of those ponds just packs carbon into the ground. Huge black spruce forests might only grow to heights of 20 feet -- but their environment is highly acidic and the ground is very wet and the trees dont rot away as much as they are consumed by the moss and shiat living there. Everything falls and keeps growing upon itself and the peat can reach depths of 100 feet.

100 feet of compacted forest compost holds an awful lot of carbon.

Muskeg is a huge carbon sink. Its good stuff. Sphagnum Moss is super boss. And its weird sexual reproduction is super interesting to read about.
 
2013-04-22 08:01:14 PM  

mikefinch: maxheck: Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.

Or bear with me -- we plant 2000 pine trees, and log them out a dozen times over those thousand years.

If you really want a carbon sink you want muskeg. The natural cycle of small wetland areas being perpetuated by beavers and the slow succession filling in of those ponds just packs carbon into the ground. Huge black spruce forests might only grow to heights of 20 feet -- but their environment is highly acidic and the ground is very wet and the trees dont rot away as much as they are consumed by the moss and shiat living there. Everything falls and keeps growing upon itself and the peat can reach depths of 100 feet.

100 feet of compacted forest compost holds an awful lot of carbon.

Muskeg is a huge carbon sink. Its good stuff. Sphagnum Moss is super boss. And its weird sexual reproduction is super interesting to read about.


And then, we can drain the swamp, mine out the peat and burn it for fuel!  Er.. nevermind.
 
2013-04-22 08:12:00 PM  
mikefinch:

maxheck: Rotting trees give up almost all the carbon they sequestered. A pine tree might sequester carbon for ~70 years, fall over, and give it all back in 10. A sequoia might start slow, but would gather carbon at an increasing rate and hold on to it for 1000+ years.

Or bear with me -- we plant 2000 pine trees, and log them out a dozen times over those thousand years.


Log them out for what? Toilet and news paper? Then you're just cycling it just as fast as it soaks up carbon. That was kinda my point... Durable structural lumber is a carbon sink.

Though I don't know if I'd trust pine lumber to last more than 5-6 decades even in a house.
 
2013-04-22 08:22:57 PM  

Erix: And then, we can drain the swamp, mine out the peat and burn it for fuel! Er.. nevermind.


Hey man -- if you can make draining muskeg and mining the peat economical then go for it...

Draining alone would be an enormous peat feat. (HA!) The water table in those places is usually about a foot below ground and the ground is porous and spongy...

Its not a fun place. The bugs. The mosquitos. Standing water as far as the eye can see and you are the only human for those bastards to chase. And the horse flies that eat chunks of your flesh.

Expensive and gross. Its like the place the earth designated as 'no development allowed' and it reinforced that with ground made of pudding and trees that are so thick you cant walk through them without crawling and squirming about...

Black fly little black fly
Always the black fly no matter where i go
I'll die with the black fly pickin my bones
In north Ontario-io in north Ontario...
 
2013-04-22 08:33:43 PM  
I want to see some enterprising soul in the S.E. US give Sal trees a try.
 
2013-04-22 08:35:08 PM  

maxheck: Log them out for what? Toilet and news paper? Then you're just cycling it just as fast as it soaks up carbon. That was kinda my point... Durable structural lumber is a carbon sink.


You could always take huge loads of crap lumber out into the deep ocean and sink it into a trench... The Japanese have been doing that to preserve really nice west coast cedar for years now. But then the Japanese pay disgusting amounts of money for trees. They buy all the nice lumber from Canada and they sink some of it to the ocean floor to preserve it for later or to wait until its worth more. I'm sure we could do that with cruddy lumber thats just grown for the carbon...

And pine lumber is just fine. Its no white spruce or douglas fir but it has its uses.
 
2013-04-22 08:35:47 PM  
I thought sequestration was bad.
 
2013-04-22 09:11:58 PM  
Why do you need to clone a redwood, when there are saplings all over the place?
 
2013-04-22 10:06:01 PM  

maxheck: In fact, the best balance might be: plant a bunch of useful, fast growing wood that you can build lasting structures out of, prevent the wood from rotting and get some use out of it at the same time.


When I'm feeling droll I figure that we could grow junk trees, make charcoal out of them (generating electricity from the heat of pyrolysis), then bury that charcoal (pure carbon) in abandoned coal mines.
 
2013-04-22 10:07:04 PM  

stuffy: Why do you need to clone a redwood, when there are saplings all over the place?


They want to propagate the genetic superiority of exceptionally long-lived specimens.
 
2013-04-22 10:31:53 PM  
theorellior:

maxheck: In fact, the best balance might be: plant a bunch of useful, fast growing wood that you can build lasting structures out of, prevent the wood from rotting and get some use out of it at the same time.

When I'm feeling droll I figure that we could grow junk trees, make charcoal out of them (generating electricity from the heat of pyrolysis), then bury that charcoal (pure carbon) in abandoned coal mines.


I'm pretty sure that making charcoal releases things nastier than CO2... In my high-school days I had a forge, and I used to roast wood in a (mostly) closed drum to make the next session's charcoal. I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of carbon monoxide invoved.

Burying stuff is fine so long as there's no water. Once you have water, mold, bacteria, fungus, whatever it starts digesting cellulose and burping CO2.

Even in the most immense coal or salt mines... How much cornstalks and wheat chaff and (per your example) junk tree can you stuff in those? (and look at Yucca Mountain's success!) I don't think they could keep up with the demand of more than a year.
 
2013-04-22 10:45:26 PM  
Cool.
 
2013-04-22 11:23:57 PM  

maxheck: I'm pretty sure that making charcoal releases things nastier than CO2... In my high-school days I had a forge, and I used to roast wood in a (mostly) closed drum to make the next session's charcoal. I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of carbon monoxide invoved.


Carbon monoxide, methanol, acetone, acetic acid, from memory... hah, just looked it up, and those (with CO2 and water) are most of the main volatile products. I missed methane. It also leaves tar (soluble and insoluble), which has cresols and who knows what else.

Thing is, you can burn those products. Sure, that's a bit more carbon that you're re-releasing instead of CO2 instead of sequestering it -- but way more than half is still ending up as stable, non-biodegradeable charcoal.

Because, as you pointed out, biodegradation does mean (approximately, in the end) "conversion to CO2". But that's not what happens to charcoal, even when there's water. I don't think anything really eats actual elemental carbon.

As for the relative size of mines, to a first approximation, the stuff we've burned to get ourselves into this mess has come from those mines; in principle, putting it back in until they're filled to capacity should undo most of the concentration increase. Unfortunately, that neglects all the mountaintop-removal and strip mining. Building mountains back up from charcoal probably wouldn't produce quite so stable an end result as filling in underground mines.
 
2013-04-22 11:40:41 PM  

ladyfortuna: WelldeadLink: ruta: Frankly I'm amazed that they've got permission to plant these in some of the countries mentioned where they have incredibly tight restrictions on non-native species.

The article did not mention anything about getting permission.
They're going to do good, whether it kills someone or not.

I'm all for planting trees, but for cryin' out loud, plant the stuff that's supposed to grow there in the first place... and ask permission first, or someone's just going to come along and rip it out anyway.


Yup.  Assholes like these guys introduced iceplant and other invasives to Southern California, where they have choked out the native plants and done Bad Things to the soil quality.  People who don't know what's going on just see that stuff and think "well, it's something green that keeps the soil in place".  They're wrong.

/at least the redwoods aren't exactly going to grow out of control
 
2013-04-22 11:57:39 PM  
Step 1 : Find an empty planet

Step 2 : Plant a whole bloody lot of giant redwoods

Step 3 : Name it Kashyyyk and build a bunch of treehouses.
 
2013-04-23 12:19:58 AM  

dryknife: I think that most of the redwoods in northern California are second growth trees except for isolated areas like Muir Woods.


The woods seem pretty wiped out now. Googling the forest will make you sick.

I think redwoods are the ones that grow up from the roots of their parent tree. I'm thinking in old forest you can see remnants of the old parents and the younger trees march out in all directions and form a circle of redwoods.
 
2013-04-23 12:23:55 AM  
Came here for skeletons of kangaroos a hundred feet in the air.
 
2013-04-23 12:58:38 AM  

StokeyBob: Came here for skeletons of kangaroos a hundred feet in the air.


This ^

Also:
They are spreading a species THAT GROWS SLOW AS HELL AND IS MONOLITHIC WHEN MATURED far outside their normal habitat - what is the problem?  If they actually become any sort of threat, it isn't as though it would be that hard to just chop them down again.  In terms of environmental damage there probably isn't a species less risky.  Hell, they probably won't even grow all that well to begin with, and they even say will surely die if not maintained.

So... not seeing the problem.
 
2013-04-23 03:32:27 AM  
I love Sequioas and Redwoods, but, I would rather that they cloned Lebanese Cedars.
 
2013-04-23 07:15:49 AM  
mikefinch:  Sphagnum Moss is super boss. And its weird sexual reproduction is super interesting to read about.


Worthless without pictures.
 
2013-04-23 10:01:26 AM  

mikefinch: Erix: And then, we can drain the swamp, mine out the peat and burn it for fuel! Er.. nevermind.

Hey man -- if you can make draining muskeg and mining the peat economical then go for it...

Draining alone would be an enormous peat feat. (HA!) The water table in those places is usually about a foot below ground and the ground is porous and spongy...

Its not a fun place. The bugs. The mosquitos. Standing water as far as the eye can see and you are the only human for those bastards to chase. And the horse flies that eat chunks of your flesh.

Expensive and gross. Its like the place the earth designated as 'no development allowed' and it reinforced that with ground made of pudding and trees that are so thick you cant walk through them without crawling and squirming about...

Black fly little black fly
Always the black fly no matter where i go
I'll die with the black fly pickin my bones
In north Ontario-io in north Ontario...


I had a teacher that told stories of his youth helping to build railways up north, and how things like back-hoes would occasionally be lost by sinking into the muskeg. Also, I remember driving through there with my family about twenty years ago. I gave blood in Bankroft.
 
2013-04-23 11:01:52 AM  
Does anybody know whether gorillas in redwoods can survive the winter?
 
2013-04-23 11:30:13 AM  

maxheck: I'm pretty sure that making charcoal releases things nastier than CO2... In my high-school days I had a forge, and I used to roast wood in a (mostly) closed drum to make the next session's charcoal. I'm no chemist, but I'm pretty sure there was a lot of carbon monoxide invoved.


That sounds like the sweet sweet smell of syngas.
 
2013-04-23 12:29:22 PM  

theorellior: stuffy: Why do you need to clone a redwood, when there are saplings all over the place?

They want to propagate the genetic superiority of exceptionally long-lived specimens.


So those cloned saplings will do great if they're planted in a place with the exact same conditions that their parent was.  Since that doesn't really exist, they should have just gone for a random assortment of saplings, in the hopes that some will be well suited for the new location.
 
2013-04-23 01:34:12 PM  

mutterfark: Shouldn't they use baobabs?


What a little prince!
 
2013-04-23 02:29:50 PM  

Erix: So those cloned saplings will do great if they're planted in a place with the exact same conditions that their parent was. Since that doesn't really exist, they should have just gone for a random assortment of saplings, in the hopes that some will be well suited for the new location.


Shhhh... the news will only sadden them.
 
2013-04-23 06:14:49 PM  

Erix: Since that doesn't really exist, they should have just gone for a random assortment of saplings, in the hopes that some will be well suited for the new location.


Or... and stay with me here... native trees from the area. I know, I know, it's crazy, but sometimes it's gotta be!
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report