Talk:Pando (tree)

Pando (tree) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Not just a tree

As the Bryce reference stresses, it's best not to call Pando a tree. It's more like a grove of trees, or a root system. The individual "trees", which apparently aren't separate organisms, aren't nearly so old. Melchoir 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even the root system can be considered entirely inter-connected - it may be, but there is no proof (short of digging the whole thing up!), and it very easily may not be too, with the clone separated into different portions. - MPF 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Forest Service article and the BioScience article, Grant's team confirmed it by genetics. Globeism 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose they confirmed they're clones. That's not quite the same as being the same organism. For example all cavendish banana plants are genetically identical clones, but grow worldwide. Deuar 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, I'd better revert my recategorization! Melchoir 09:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I just found Clonal colony. Inserting... Melchoir 09:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How large

There seems to be some conflict over the size of the clone. Scientific references I checked (e.g. [http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/4f7adc214b91a685c12569fa005d0ee7/c125692700623b74c1256a0600551816/$FILE/JT00103743.DOC Consensus Document on the Biology of Populus], .doc file) cite 43 hectares (= 107 acres) and 6,000 tonnes; the '170 acres' in the article appears to be an error, perhaps a transposition error 107 → 170. I'll change it to 43 hectares, as that appears to be the best founded citation. It would be worth chasing up the original publications for more details:

• Grant, M.C., Mitton, J.B., and Linhart, Y.B. (1992). Even larger organisms. Nature 360: 216.
• Mitton, J.B., and Grant, M.C. 1996. Genetic variation and the natural history of quaking aspen. BioScience 46: 25-31.

The same Populus article also cites "while in areas of Utah, groups as large as 80 ha have been observed (Kemperman and Barnes 1976)" (Kemperman, J.A., and Barnes, B.V. 1976. Clone size in American aspens. Canad. J. Bot. 54: 2603-2607). These have presumably not been analysed yet in great detail, so Pando's reign as largest may well be short-lived. - MPF 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be. The BioScience article cites some biologist who believe there are undiscovered Quaking Aspens in Utah that are nearly one million years old. Globeism 21:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that quoted in another publication while I was searching for info. I suspect that's a bit on the fanciful side, though! - MPF 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or if it is true, it does make one's jaw drop given the reltively young (!) history of human migration out of Africa. Globeism 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe australopithecine jaws, too?? :-) I suspect it won't be provable, though. I'm getting more and more suspicious of tree ages for anything that isn't backed up with actual ring counts, there's too many cases of wild over-estimates, and not just in the popular press, too MPF 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Bob van Pelt (expert tree measurer, Washington, US)

"The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone" [1]

MPF 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good informtaion. I will incorporate that. Globeism 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Pando count as one organism?

I know that there is some debate in the scientific community about whether clonal colonies such as Pando count as a single organism. Should this be mentioned in the article? Heavy Metal Cellist ^talk_contribs

I think the article is asking for some explanation that it's not at all clear how to define a single organism in these situations. There are actually many similar examples from all over: e.g. fungi in a forest can extend over huge areas and be connected as well as genetically identical. Who knows how old some large ones might be. Coral polyps can form biologically connected colonies, and e.g. bananas also reproduce by suckers. Deuar 19:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This all sounds very interesting. Perhaps one can find a reference to contribute to the article? I will look later tonight, but any help is appreciated. Globeism 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I did my best collecting academic articles on the subject and adding coverage to the controversy (not being an expert). Globeism 00:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clonal colonies are a tricky area, as to whether they remain a single inter-connected organism. The root system is impossible to analyse in full, but two points worth noting are that (1) old roots die off, severing the clone into separate sections (probably with a timeline not dissimilar to the tree trunks, maybe ~50-100 years - consider a decaying stump from a fallen tree; the main roots will become separated as the stump rots away), but also (2) young roots from different sections of the clone, on crossing over each other, are able to self-graft onto each other (and also onto other adjacent clones, but that's a separate matter!**), thus re-establishing connections. Overall, with a 43 hectare clone, I'd think it is highly unlikely that the whole lot will be fully interconnected though; things like stream erosion become significant - once a clone has been cut into separate parts by a gully forming, that is something they would not be able to reconnect across. **Root grafts are a common phenomenon, and readily occur between genetically different individuals of the same species (or even different but closely related species).

I have to admit, the more I think about it, the more I find the postulated age very speculative indeed; aspen roots can grow over a metre a year; 43 hectares equates to a circle 370 m radius, and so a 43 ha colony could potentially develop in as short as 370 years or even a bit less. I don't suppose it is quite that young, but equally, their grounds for claiming many tens of thousands of years are very shaky, and depend on an unproven postulate of an inability to grow from seed in more recent times. True enough that aspen seeds don't germinate easily in modern climatic conditions, but to say that they never do so (considering the millions of seeds they produce annually, and their very good long-distance wind dispersal abilities) I think is scientifically invalid. There is no reason at all why there could not have been one unusually wet year in the last thousand or two, where a seed was able to germinate.

One other teaser that needs to be eliminated: the possibility that Native Americans (observing the value of aspen as browse for the elk, moose, beaver, etc, that they hunted) deliberately expanded the aspen groves by digging and replanting aspen roots, just the same as modern gardeners do . . . - MPF 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting, particularly the Native Americans remark. I added another paragraph (or quote) on Grant's reasons for the age. It will be exciting to see if anyone can ever definitively prove Pando's age. Globeism 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Where Pando lives

It would be really cool to have a Google Maps satellite photo link for Pando. Does anyone have its lat/long? The Wednesday Island 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just one clue not in the article: from [2] says it is "straddling the highway to Fish Lake". Melchoir 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... "straddling the highway" ... well, even if it was originally all fully interconnected, it isn't now. Tree roots do not survive below highways, so now it is definitely divided into at least two unconnected parts. - MPF 09:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

References

We ought to work this in:

• http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6401/abs/360216a0.html

Melchoir 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And, of course:

• http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/1975/00000021/00000003/art00026

Melchoir 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And this one is good for citations in general:

• http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28199601%2946%3A1%3C25%3AGVATNH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Melchoir 19:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Links #2 and #8 no longer exist and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.122 (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some more info . . .

. . . which rather debunks the claim that conditions in the Rockies suitable for germination have not occurred in the last 80,000 years:

“ Seedling study: Kay [90] documented postfire quaking aspen seedling

establishment following 1986 and 1988 fires in Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, respectively. He found seedlings were concentrated in kettles and other topographic depressions, seeps, springs, lake margins, and burnt-out riparian zones. A few seedlings were widely scattered throughout the burns. In Grand Teton National Park, establishment was greatest (950-2,700 seedlings/ha) in 1989, a wet year, but hundreds to thousands of seedlings established each year despite drought conditions in 1986-1988 and 1990-1991. Seedlings surviving past one season occurred almost exclusively on severely burned surfaces.

”

From US Forest Service FEIS. Much more in there worth detailing. - MPF 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus blah blah

The thing about jesus is mentioned in the referenced article, but isn't actually relevant here, or if it is, the wording here is inaccurate. It is not called the trembling giant because people thought it was the wood they crucified christ on, it is called the trembling giant because it is a trembling aspen. Trembling aspen also is not called so because people thought it shook with fear of god, but because the tree seriously shakes and makes a stink of noise when it does. The info is peripheral and a causation is implied on this page that does not exist. 128.101.70.97 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

reddit.com

Just a note to let everyone know that this article is currently number one at Reddit, so it's getting a LOT of hits. Hopefully it doesn't get vandalized, but you may all want to place it on your watchlists. (I have.) Goyston (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg

Image:LgstPlant39 sgl BGv2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tons versus Tonnes

Although I'm a scientist--and prefer the SI unit system--shouldn't this article list the weight in tons before the weight in tonnes because Pando is in the US? Friedlad (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, because the original article used the American measurement, the Retain rule goes in to effect. I'll get on this tomorrow. Friedlad (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, I noticed that this article overall is written with British spelling, but as the subject is located in the United States it should use the American variation. Per WP:ENGVAR I am proposing this here, as consensus should be established before the spelling is changed.--otherlleft 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Redwood clonal group evidence is sufficient.

In the Debate part of the article, I changed one part about redwoods, so it reads that Sequoia sempervirens has not been sought and identified, instead of the statement that none have been found. Around spring 2010, I was assisting a man in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. We were measuring redwoods in tall canopy suggested by LiDAR. I spotted a large row of curly redwood, big ones, all growing in a perfectly straight row. About 6 to 8 of them. The straight line, and that curly redwood are uncommon anyway, indicates that they are all genetically the same, and likely connected via roots. Probably was a small fallen redwood once that gave rise to the entire row. Other trunks off to the side may be connected too. I did not check. But this alone is evidence for a comparable volume of redwoods. I'm a Certified Arborist and experienced with tree measuring. That's why I believe it would be wrong to state in the article that no redwoods have been found, comparable. But it is reasonable to write that no redwood stands have been tested and proved to be comparable, or exceed the aspen at this point. There are so many redwoods, and some of us don't find it worth the investment to hunt for clonal redwood stands. Odds are that dozens of huge clonal stands exist. http://www.mdvaden.com Mdvaden (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)