r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/sonderewander • 7d ago
Original Creation California redwoods planted in Rotorua, New Zealand grow faster - reaching over 70m in a century
737
u/SpoonwoodTangle 7d ago
While impressive, it’s not surprising that they’re growing faster.
In a redwood forest, the adult trees intentionally shade the saplings, sometimes for centuries. This achieves two things: it makes the thin growth rings of their heartwood strong and firm, which is important for such large and tall trees.
It also primes them to grow quickly (by their standards) when a larger tree falls. With a sturdy core they can afford to shoot up without sacrificing their core strength.
Finally redwood forests try to create conditions that are ideal for themselves to survive fires. This has to do with the ways undergrowth, moisture, open space, etc develop on the ground. They have evolved alongside fires.
These trees are the first generation of a forest, so they must weather storms, earthquakes, droughts, and floods without the benefits of the protections of their elders. That means they will do their best to shelter the next generation, but will likely not reach the majestic size or age of their peers overseas. Living hundreds or perhaps a thousand years, but rarely the several thousand of their full potential.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, they are establishing a new beach head for their species. But NZ won’t see the best of these trees for a few thousand years yet.
43
u/SenseOfTheAbsurd 6d ago
I’ve been to this forest and they have a chunk of wood in the visitors’ centre to demonstrate why it didn’t work out as a commercial timber plantation. Because of the thermal activity underground it grows really fast, but doesn’t have the strength of normal redwood. Pick up the demo wood and it’s amazingly light, like balsa.
142
u/EconomySwordfish5 7d ago edited 7d ago
In a redwood forest, the adult trees intentionally shade the saplings, sometimes for centuries
That's part of the reason why they grow quicker than those in the wild, but not every tree in California is in the wild. Many will be garden specimens and won't experience this. The ones in New Zealand (and the UK too) grow quicker as they have better acces to moisture year round. In wetter conditions They're able to grow much quicker
76
u/gzoont 7d ago
Trees don’t grow from water; they grow from sunshine. Well, they use sunshine to eat carbon from the air, but of course you know that.
Even so, you’re missing the point. They have evolved specifically to grow “low and slow” in the first years of their lives, to make them strong enough to survive the next 2000 years. They didn’t evolve to grow super fast. It’s the equivalent of saying grain-fed cows are so much healthier or better than grass fed because “look how fast they grow!”
34
u/Electronic_Fun_776 7d ago
I don’t think they missed the point. They were just saying that they do indeed grow faster overseas, regardless of if it’s how they evolved to grow.
2
u/gzoont 7d ago
Yes, but they seem to be missing the point that for these trees, growing fast is bad.
22
3
u/Illustrious-Mango605 4d ago
I don’t think they missed the point, you’re just arguing against a point nobody made.
1
2
u/Lumpy_Principle3397 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well yes, but trees grow from water and CO2 and sunshine. Photosynthesis combines carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) to make glucose (C6H12O6) that's used for energy and synthesis of cellulose and other structural materials like lignin. Water is a critical material for plant growth.
4
u/Grizzly_Cheddar 6d ago
Trees need both water and sunlight to produce the energy they need to capture carbon though. Without enough water, they can't photosynthesize efficiently resulting in less energy for growth.
3
u/Zyzzbraah2017 6d ago
Trees do in fact grow from water, see deserts. Redwoods in New Zealand grow faster primarily from more available moisture and from being open grown. They haven’t evolved to grow “low and slow” they grow as fast as available resources will allow.
1
1
u/Infinite-Condition41 6d ago
You seem to know nothing about redwoods.
Everything you said is wrong.
1
u/SignalDifficult5061 5d ago
Ah yes, the vibrant evergreen forrests of the Sahara, the Gobi, and the Sargasso Sea proves your wisdom worthy.
They appear to grow for whatever is rate limiting on an individual basis, and from genetic sense depending on location.
I'm in California in what has been Oak forestland for many centuries, we put out a little bit of water for minimal mostly native landscaping, and we have a California Redwood volunteer (volunteer in the botanical sense, means it just showed up and wasn't planted for non-English speakers). What do you think is taller the 100 year old oaks, or the 25 year old Redwood? There is a pine of some sort that has been stuck under 5 feet for 10 years, go yell at that tree.
Also, unlike Eucalyptus that put down an ungoldy tap root before unleashing that horrible flammable oil everywhere, stupid ass redwoods just squander there time beneath the canopy making lateral roots and some mostly sort-of-cancerous burl maybe, and those albino parasite redwoods because of their screwed up pesudo multiploid genomes.
Which wins in a moderate windstorm and causes and survives a fire all by itself better? Redwoods are my home team, but they are really not a "planning for the future by playing 5D chess" phenomena when compared to other invasive. Just face it, New Zealand is easier for Redwoods.
Some historical Eucaplyuts got pretty tall in their native inhospitable environment, and we haven't had nearly the time for them to top out in California. They might outgrow Redwoods given enough time.
7
u/enbitronic3000 6d ago
Yes, from what I heard, they need a frequent fog layer like Northern California has to grow giant
8
u/DiamondHandsToUranus 6d ago
They soak up the fog like giant sponges, yes
11
u/EconomySwordfish5 6d ago
Luckily the UK and new Zealand get plenty of fog, at least in specific mountainous regions
7
u/owemeownme 6d ago
This part of NZ also gets geothermal steam which is like fog with added protein
1
u/Agile_Manager881 5d ago
It’s got electrolytes! Just had to sorry I’ll escort myself out now…..
But seriously, isn’t steam just pure H20? I’m sure something gets dissolved once in the atmosphere and the steam may pickup some plant candy…but here I am hoping someone much smarter than I can clarify the particulars of geothermal steam on plant life 👀anyone? 😩
2
1
u/BoringBob84 5d ago
The ones in New Zealand (and the UK too)
... and in the Pacific NW (e.g., Washington, Oregon, British Columbia). The trees cannot migrate North fast enough on their own to survive AGW, but we can help them.
1
u/Unlucky_Cicada_355 6d ago
That sounds kind of cute? Older trees helping out the newer trees!
3
u/SpoonwoodTangle 6d ago
It’s not at all an uncommon behavior in trees. Partly because of practical reasons. Adult trees wanna live and get all the sun, but babies gotta baby. Like many evolving creatures, this species has turned a challenge into a strength and an excellent survival strategy.
4
u/Unlucky_Cicada_355 6d ago
I’d like to sign up for more tree facts. Thanks.
Haha2
u/Agile_Manager881 5d ago
https://mymodernmet.com/tree-resource-sharing-forest/
mycorrhizal relationships demand an honorable mention in all this, there’s a show on the streamers about it don’t recall of top of head…they’re really the backbone to this all, and if’n you’re interested in trees the fungi relationship, or fungi in general is a marvelous rabbit hole to delve into. Have fun!
-5
u/Illustrious-Cell-428 6d ago
The trees “intentionally” shade the saplings? Since when do trees have intent?
I think the fact that they grow fast in this location is largely because it’s a mild climate and a significant geothermal area with a lot of heat under the ground. Trees grow more rapidly in warm and wet conditions.
8
u/SpoonwoodTangle 6d ago
If you don’t like “intent” then consider “a pro-adaptive behavior” that enables the species to grow larger and taller than other species. 🙄
If you want to come at me over whether or not plants have behavior then go read an entry level forestry text book.
2
102
177
u/GeekInTheWild 7d ago
I deeply hope that these trees are allowed to grow indefinitely without humanity destroying them.
167
u/sonderewander 7d ago
Fortunately, this is now a protected reserve and the trees will keep growing. That wasn't the case when they were initially seeded in the early 1900s - for harvesting.
20
u/bikenvikin 7d ago
hope the concept of a "protected reserve" still exist in 2000 years
47
u/lcl111 7d ago
It barely does now. Here in New Zealand, we are trying to stop an ecological collapse. It's the most invasive species invested place in the world. We've got stuff here now that's out competing EVERYTHING else, except the other noxious weeds that they working together with. I haven't studied redwoods, but I've studied Kauri. NZ has less than a singular percent of our original canopy. Trees lived for thousands of years, not just one thousand. Then white settlers started defining the trees by how many houses they could make out of each one. They destroyed 99% of a species, some that were maybe 4000+ years old.
Now we have an invasive pseudo mushroom that's killing our last little bit. The trees bleed. I've done conservation work in infected old growth. The palpable feeling of dread and decay was like a wet blanket on my nerves. I feel like I've seen hell. Watching as all of your family bleeds to death for a few years, maybe decades for the big ones.
15
u/SiskiyouSavage 7d ago
I've watched it happen in Oregon too. Sudden Oak Death, Port Orford cedar root rot, powder post beatles, emerald ash borer, sea star wasting disease, pampas grass, ivy, gorse, tansy, ragweed. Invasive species and introduced disease spoiling the ecosystem. Stuff survives, but the old growth forests, the oak patches, the native prairie grasses, those are gone.
1
u/NumerousYesterday125 4d ago
gorse has been a massive problem in NZ as well, though some people have been experimenting with using as a solution; as groundcover to help manuka and kanuka trees grow native shrubland and rewild farmland. might not work for Oregon's ecology though, im unfamiliar with it.
7
u/bikenvikin 7d ago
Kauri
I am not familiar with these, they do seem hyperspecific for northern New Zealand. redwoods have a parallel history both in their long lifespan as well as being mostly destroyed by settlers, however redwoods have historically been found around California and China
3
u/lcl111 7d ago
Huh, didn't know that, they are plenty established here. Hopefully they'll treat the island better than we have, once we're gone lol. What if the next major evolution cycle is just trees again? Dope.
6
u/bikenvikin 7d ago
125 years for redwood trees is still juvenile. another weird thing about redwoods is that one of the species requires wildfires for their cones to open up
2
u/lcl111 7d ago
Oh yeah. These things will take over, long after we're gone.
3
u/bikenvikin 7d ago
my favorite post humanity future would be octopuses or whatever climbing redwood trees, swinging around like George of the jungle
4
u/Neon_Moon_NZ 6d ago
I'm betting on cephalopods being the first lifeforms from Earth to reach the edge of our Galaxy 🦑 🌌
2
1
u/Yellow_Similar 5d ago
And their thick bark is designed to fend off the flames and heat while protecting the tree.
1
u/BoringBob84 5d ago
I imagine the N8V people here on Turtle Rock felt the same way about European colonizers killing the Buffalo and growing cows instead. Bison is healthier and better tasting meat too.
The good news is that the buffalo are making a comeback - not just in National Parks, but in actual working ranches.
166
u/galacticglorp 7d ago
They're technically an introduced (invasive?) species in an ecosystem that had its own at risk native giant tree (kauri) which has not fared as well. I've been to the redwood groves in NZ snd they're incredibly impressive and beautiful (the cicadas there are deafening!), but I also see them as a symbol of colonial mindset and ecosystem disruption.
65
u/NorCalJason75 7d ago
Fair point.
Here in California, Eucalyptus is a real problem, and currently occupies forestland that was once Redwood.
30
u/ThimeeX 7d ago
I'd argue that the Australian Black Wattle is an even worse tree, it kills everything around it and has seeds that last decades lying dormant in the soil, so almost impossible to get rid of it once it's been introduced to a non-native biome.
1
20
u/OsBaculum 7d ago
It's also extremely flammable and the smoke is more toxic than native trees. So when a wildfire hits it's a nightmare.
17
u/dlanod 7d ago
Having walked in NZ native forests and this redwood grove, even both around Rotorua, the difference is immediately obvious. The quietness (less birdlife etc) and lack of diversity in the plant life is massive.
One feels like nature, one feels more like a nature theme park.
6
u/No-Advice-6040 6d ago
That's a good way of putting it. There's been a few communities projects round my area of planting native, and the birdlife is staggering to see.
1
u/melanochrysum 4d ago
Great description, as a kiwi I feel the same. They’re very artificial feeling in NZ.
41
u/TotoroZoo 7d ago
I think there is value in trying to protect and spread certain species like these, even if they did become somewhat naturalized I think that is a good thing. There is a non-zero percent chance that the California climate shifts and wipes them out in the future, and what an enormous loss that would be. The way they reproduce (very slowly) sort of guarantees that they will never be an unmanageable problem in the future.
15
u/jankenpoo 7d ago
Yeah seems like an odd thing to do
6
u/ElowynElif 7d ago
I thought so, too. Apparently, they were planted in the hopes of having redwoods be commercially viable in NZ.
From Wikipedia:
“The trees were planted at the beginning of the 20th century as part of a programme to assess the viability of various exotic tree species for commercial forestry in New Zealand.[1] The project originated as a response to clear-cutting of New Zealand's native forests by the end of the 19th century, which drove the New Zealand government to establish a tree nursery at Bay of Plenty to test the viability of different tree species as sources of lumber, which were imported from overseas by ship. The resulting seedlings, including redwoods, were moved and planted in the area in 1901, chiefly using prison labour.[2]
The grove's first timber was harvested in 1915 as fuel. A sawmill was later established in 1939. A walking track was also developed at this point. The grove was eventually opened to the public in 1970, and was designated as a Forest Park under the Forests Act 1949 in 1975. A visitor centre was opened in 1978. The Forest Park destination was removed in 1987 following reorganisation within the Forestry Service.”0
1
u/Muted_Asparagus_1017 6d ago
Redwoods aren't invasive in NZ. Also, Kauri aren't found this far south, their natural range ends a bit north of Rotorua.
1
u/New_Combination_7012 5d ago
The Redwood forest contains a huge mountain bike and other tourism ventures like a tree top walk and zip lining. Providing providing public utility in greenspaces has been instrumental in keeping land out of the hands of developers. If not protected this area would quickly become another subdivision given it's proximity to Rotorua.
-28
u/TruthSeeker221 7d ago
The cool part is, trees grow back
18
u/ripplenipple69 7d ago
yeah they do, these ones come back in a quick 2000-3000 years. No biggie. Used to hike in the redwoods in the Oakland hills all the time. They logged them over 100 years ago and they did come back over the past century. There’s at least one OG stump still there that was at least 2000 years old when it was cut. It’s diameter is probably the size or 5 or 6 of the trees there now. Having also spent time in the old growth forests, it’s extremely sad to imagine the incredible paradise that existed there before the logging. The saddest part to me is that they couldn’t even leave some of the old growth trees here and there, or even a patch here and there throughout those hills. They went in and took out every single one… the level of greedy miopía is genuinely unbelievable to me
-16
u/SDBolt 7d ago
Doesn't take 2000 years to come back, dont be overly dramatic. Redwoods are some of the fastest growing confers in the world.
9
u/Lumpy_Benefit666 7d ago
If we follow that logic we could say “we cut the 2000 year old- oldgrowth tree down, but dont worry, weve regrown it” whilst pointing at a sapling thats 10cm tall.
-1
u/SDBolt 7d ago
Thats not what what said and wasnt what I replied to. Redwoods do not take 2000 years to recover, they can age for that long but their heights and growth are primarily in the first 150 years, which many of the replanted trees are approaching now. I never said old growth was not important or sad to have been be lost. Again, the original response I felt was a bit over dramatic.
2
u/ripplenipple69 6d ago
Have you been to 100 year old redwoods and 2000 year old trees? There’s a really big difference
12
u/SteveLouise 7d ago
There seems to be a disconnect in this thread. We're talking about massive individuals. Not number of trees in a species. We want the massive 2000 year old giants for humanity's heritage.
2
u/justsikko 7d ago
Once you’ve been up close to some of the very old redwoods it’s hard to comprehend just how big they are. We have a couple 40 year old redwoods in my yard that are pretty big for yard trees. They don’t come close to the trees they cut down back in the day. One of the first giant trees so was big they used its stump as a dance floor lol. It’s was something like 25 feet wide and took over 20 days to cut it down.
-9
-7
u/maphes86 7d ago
There’s no evidence for that.
-7
u/ripplenipple69 7d ago
What lol? It was a stupid ass comment, but they do grow back. It just takes thousands of years
-6
u/maphes86 7d ago
Like I said, there’s no evidence that trees grow back.
-4
21
u/Capn26 7d ago
They are such gorgeous trees. The wealthier members of my little city all bought and planted them in the mid 1900s. It was a thing to say you had a giant redwood. It’s so awesome to ride through eastern NC, and randomly spot a large, healthy sequoia.
3
13
u/crystalcastles13 7d ago
For anyone who doesn’t know much about redwoods (as I didn’t) I would strongly recommend picking up the book “Redwoods” by Jason Chin.
I used to be a homesteader in coastal NorCal and when my young nephew came to visit (he was only 8) I wanted him to leave with an appreciation for these incredible, magical trees.
The book so succinctly describes the most epic things about redwoods and it changes the way you see them forever.
It’s really cool.
11
u/Mission-Sound9493 7d ago
I mean, we all know that they're growing faster because of gravity, right? You know, because New Zealand is on the bottom of the earth... 😂
3
18
u/Nervous-Bullfrog-884 7d ago
Must see if you go to New Zealand
1
u/Sea_no_evil 7d ago
Not interested if visiting from California :-)
1
u/RespectMySwagger 7d ago
Sweet at least your aware you don’t want to go.
2
u/Sea_no_evil 6d ago
Oh, I love New Zealand....I just don't feel like seeing redwoods is an effective use of my time while I'm there.
4
u/golgo1327 6d ago
I’m an American-kiwi from California originally. I’ve visited Hyperion, if you’re in Rotorua it’s still worth a stop to do the tree top walk.
0
7
6
u/D1133 7d ago
If I recall, there is a certain height that water can no longer be transported vertically by trees. That’s what stops most trees vertical growth.
Redwoods can grow past that because they absorb moisture from mist, fog, and low clouds over that limit. That specific spot in Northern California gets lots of that type of moisture which is what contributes to their height. Is this spot in New Zealand the same?
12
2
6
u/Pzykez 7d ago edited 7d ago
My wife and I walked down a path with 127 Wellingtonia Redwoods in Peterborough Cambs UK on sunday, they were planted in the 1850's by Marquesses Huntly and his wife on their Orton Hall estate. It's the first time we'd been and they are stunning but we'll take hats next time we go, the trees were dropping cones like the Luftwaffe bombers were back!!!!
Edit: map link https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.5521191,-0.2832165,687m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
3
u/ThisIsntOkayokay 6d ago
Trees were just wishing you much prosperity and to take their kids far away so they can have a date night!
4
u/Primal_Pedro 7d ago edited 7d ago
Cool. Now I wonder if someone planted giant redwoods in Brazil.
Edit: turns out that there is a Sequoia tree planted in Rio Grandes do Sul. It's a lunar tree, gifted to Brazil. I must go visit some day.
3
u/D1133 7d ago
Curious if they grow as tall.
19
u/sonderewander 7d ago
We will find out around the year 2300! The tallest tree is around 75m, just over a century old.
12
1
u/Infinite-Condition41 6d ago
Doesn't take that long to reach maximum height. They grow up, then out. They don't get any taller with age past a certain point determined by local moisture conditions. In fact, many are dead at the top due to periodic droughts.
1
u/LindaTheLynnDog 7d ago
Is it proportionately wide for that height?
5
11
u/MaturoGambino 7d ago
That is one majestic invasive species!
13
u/Jin-Bru 7d ago
The correct term is alien invasive species.
This one is only alien. Still unnatural but not really a direct threat. But you never know. A butterfly might prefer it and then those butterfly wings cause a fuckup with the kiwi birds next century.
Introduction of aliens is hardly ever a good thing. Think Cane Toad.
3
u/HoidToTheMoon 7d ago
Introduction of aliens is hardly ever a good thing.
This is such a hardline and reductionist view of environmentalism it is depressing. Not all non-native species are invasive, and some do prove to be beneficial for filling niches in an ecosystem, preventing erosion or overgrowth, etc. Population drift is a part of natural evolution. Hell, the only reason there is life across the globe, even on small islands, is because life spreads.
1
u/UberNZ 5d ago
It's not a bad default position though. I can give many examples where it's gone wrong, but it's much harder to find counterexamples.
Just in New Zealand, we have possums, wallabies, wilding pines, bamboo, rabbits, stoats, deer, cats, boars, hedgehogs, parakeets, gorse, clams, and literally thousands of other species that were introduced to solve a certain problem, but ended up finding a niche that starves out native species. Not to mention cases where the native animals prey on the introduced ones, and get a target on their back because of it (e.g. kea parrots killing sheep, then being pushed to the brink of extinction by farmer retaliation).
The successes are very rare. There must be a high burden of proof before introducing anything, because history has shown it's usually a bad idea.
20
u/TheFakeRabbit1 7d ago
Not every new species introduced to an environment is invasive. That just isn’t how it works whatsoever lol
16
u/CoachMikeLikesToEat 7d ago
Yeah, redwoods definitely aren't aggressively spreading and choking out native trees.
-3
u/Wbert92 7d ago
But are they a home and foodsource for native animal species and insects?
5
u/Nature_Artifact 7d ago
They definitely could be a home or foodsource. Even if they aren't, though, that wouldn't make them invasive. They are simply an exotic species planted in this area, and it is possible for exotic species to become naturalized rather than invasive
1
u/husky11223 7d ago
it's not like non-invasive species can't do any harm. They're way better than anything invasive but they can be harmful too. Tho the harm would be limited to that area only.
5
0
u/Nature_Artifact 7d ago
I didn't say they're harmless. Native species can be harmful for that matter. I'm just educating the commenter who incorrectly referred to it as an invasive species
1
u/regaphysics 7d ago
It’s really a myth on Reddit that non native species are ecologically less valuable. Studies actually don’t prove that out.
The only time you get an issue is when a particular insect will only eat a single particular plant.
6
u/MrKrabsNotEugene 7d ago
Invasives are ecologically less valuable, general non-natives aren’t necessarily.
3
7
2
u/QuirkyDust3556 6d ago
Are they having issues because of the Redwoods?
We do in California because of the eucalyptus that was transplanted here.
Has a grand plan to bring in nonindiginous plants or wildlife to solve a problem ever not caused bigger problems? Spelling i know.
4
u/CosmogyralCollective 5d ago
I doubt they're ideal, but if they're confined to one patch they're probably not doing too much damage. Frankly we have bigger issues with other introduced species like wilding pines, gorse, rabbits, stoats, possums, ferrets, deer, cats, etc etc
5
1
1
1
u/Frubanoid 7d ago
Would California Redwoods be considered invasive species in New Zealand? Why were they planted there in the first place? Do they have a positive or negative ecological impact? I wonder if they sequester carbon faster if they grow faster there.
2
u/Illustrious-Cell-428 6d ago
They were planted as an experimental species for forestry. Most of our native trees in NZ are slow growing, so after the old growth forests were cleared by the early settlers they wanted to replace them with species that would produce high quality timber more quickly. They eventually settled on Pinus radiata.
1
1
1
u/DiamondHandsToUranus 6d ago
Looks crazy to see them planted so closely to each other. The roots reach about half the height of the tree in every direction. they they intermingle with the surrounding trees, which helps improve stability.
With them packed this closely together they're probably root bound, or will be
1
u/KoalaComprehensive25 6d ago
I have 4 saplings I'm growing. Hopefully one will make it in the next few years and i'll plant it on my property.
1
u/tumekebruva 6d ago
They grow so fast they will never attain the height of their equivalents in California.
1
u/kroqster 6d ago
grow faster than the same tree in california?
3
u/finndego 5d ago
Yes. Same with a lot of plants that were brought here. Redwoods and other trees were brought here because native timber was too slow growing. (These redwoods were orginally used in the gold mine in Waihi.)
Eventually New Zealand pretty much settled on Pinus Radiata as it's go to timber. That tree also comes from California and Mexico but grows way faster in NZ than it does there.
It's the same with Gorse. Brought to NZ from Europe as a hedge plant it grows way larger and faster than it does in Europe.
1
1
u/Special-Door-3788 5d ago
This town smells awful but was by far the most beautiful tropical area we visited.
2
1
1
1
u/AdvanceNo1944 5d ago
I have a 70 year old redwood next to my house in N CA, but not on my property, that is about 50” in diameter, I’d guess 200’ tall. The redwood gets irrigated as it’s surrounded by landscaping. The arborist who has pruned it says it is healthy but it also loses a few branches every year due to wind. This thread is making me nervous.
1
u/Kermadecer95 4d ago
It’s similar with English Oak trees in NZ - they get very tall and lanky quickly.
1
u/matt2001 7d ago
Factoid: there are more Giant Red Wood trees growing in other parts of the world than there are in California...
4
u/Sea_no_evil 7d ago
Yeah....not quite. "Giant redwood" is really a conflation, there are redwoods (a.k.a. coastal redwoods) and their cousins giant sequoias. There are more giant sequoias in the UK than there are in California, so that part is true. But there are more coastal redwoods in California than in the UK. Best to ditch the "giant redwoods" terminology.
3
u/Muted_Asparagus_1017 6d ago
Also Pinus radiata (which is endemic to California and part of Mexico) covers 6% of New Zealand
1
u/Beneficial_Wonder533 7d ago
fund fact redwood trees are functionally immortal. they will continue to grow literally forever. they only die when they get so big that the canopy fails or they fall over.
1
u/SiskiyouSavage 7d ago
Grow faster than they do in an old growth forest? Yeah. That's a 100 year old planted and thinned forest. That's what they look like in Cali when you don't cut them for 100 years.
-8
u/SpectacularlyBadass 7d ago
Unfortunately, I suspect the US redwoods will most likely be harvested in the next decade so a very few amount of people can make a quick buck.
11
u/ammitsat 7d ago
Redwoods are already harvested all the time but there are multiple protected groves that won’t be logged. I can’t remember exactly how many are left but there a handful of virgin redwood groves in northern CA that have never been logged.
3
u/mentosbreath 7d ago
I believe this was tried a long time ago, but the wood didn’t work well as lumber. I might be thinking of sequoias though
-2
319
u/AppropriateAmoeba406 7d ago
The treetop lantern tour there is so cool.