Talk:List of oldest trees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If anyone is interested in the oldest trees in Russia, some larches in Yakutia are known to have been 919 years old.[1] --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro claims to possess the oldest (olive) tree in Europe (ca. 2000 years).[2] --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norway spruces

Here is an article about an ancient Swedish cluster of Norway spruces. The oldest is carbon-dated to be 8000 years old. Two spruces elsewhere in Sweden were dated to be around 5000 years old. The article states, "Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died," which I do not understand. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080411/sc_nm/sweden_tree_dc;_ylt=AuWoMEubcHYw_w.1mNlwsSyzvtEF 216.137.71.118 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The root system is the oldest part. New trunks sprout as required.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"But in the case of the Norway spruce, ancient remnants of its roots were radiocarbon dated."

It is beyond me how you can claim to have carbon dated a living tree. It is possible to find that there was a tree at the same spot 8,000 years ago, but how are they going to substantiate the claim that it was the same individual? dab (𒁳) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They say by genetic matching. See link just added. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

being genetically identical doesn't make you an identical individual, just a clone. The line between clone and identity is, of course, a bit blurred with plants, but by "oldest tree" I suggest we understand a tree that was standing there for such and such an extent of time, not some root cluster lurking away and producing a sprout now and again. I have my doubts this belongs in this list at all. List of long-living organisms may be a different issue. A root cluster may be an "organism" even if it isn't "a tree" proper.dab (𒁳) 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the term is clonal colony. By genetic matching, you can establish the clonal colony has such and such an age, but it doesn't establish an individual organism has existed throughout the period. If we list clonal colonies, Pando (tree) beats the Norway spruces by a factor of ten. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All three sources describe it as a "tree". So that is how we report it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying we should not report it, I am saying we should distinguish clonal colonies from individuals. The Norway spruces would then be listed alongside Pando (tree) as a clonal colony, and there will be a separate section on individual trees. Pando is "a tree" that is "made up of 47,000 tree trunks, each with an ordinary tree’s usual complement of leaves and branches"[3] -- sure, it's a "tree" botanically, but it may not be superfluous that it isn't what we usually envisage when we say "tree". dab (𒁳) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether the pando tree has been carbon dated in the same way as the Swedish tree. If the root of the Norway spruce tree is 8000 years old, it is not the same thing as a clonal colony where the individual roots may not be older than an ordinary aspen.--Berig (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clonal section

I don't believe there is a hard and fast distinction between clonal plants and individual organisms. The Norway spruce, for instance, is not clearly not a single organism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about trees here, which by their nature are polyphyletic, and so do not behave in a simple, unified way. That aside, the categories are simple; plants that reproduce vegetatively have stems that are all connected. Their individual stems can die, but the organism itself does not die with them, allowing it to live many thousands of years. Where are you having trouble distinguishing? And yes, the Swedish Norway spruce is a clonal organism, that's why it was in the clonal organism section before you reverted my edits — 82.18.44.72 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said. the sources report it as a tree, not a clonal organism. You claim it is not just a tree. Show me the source that says the Norway spruce is not a tree. And note the discussion at [4], which also disagrees with your simplistic viewpoint. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you mean by "tree". Yes, the Norway Spruce is certainly of a species commonly considered to be trees, and it is larger than the minimum size to be considered a tree. What I am saying is that the current stem above ground is not 10,000 years old; the spruce is 10,000 years old because its root system has lived for that long by sending fickle shoots above ground. The claimant plant is clearly therefore a clonal organism. Quoting Umeå University, as reported by the BBC "The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four 'generations' of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years."

You may wish to note that each and every clonal organism can, in itself, be considered an individual organism - some are just a really really big individual organism. Also, the term "clonal organism" implies that there is more than one visible stem (as in cloning, here multiple daughters are produced), but that need not be the case; the root system may only send up one stem at a time, replacing the last limb only after it has died.

So ner :P 82.18.44.72 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that just because the above-ground stems are renewed (which it not in dispute for the Norway Spruce) that this necessarily means that we are not dealing with a single organism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

we are dealing with a "single organism". However, this is "oldest trees", not "oldest living organisms" or "oldest clonal colonies". Sheesh. Of course the Norway spruce is a "species of tree". But can you please appreciate that the term "old tree" is commonly taken to refer to a "tree" as in "a woody plant that has secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance"? dab (𒁳) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh indeed. The argument is not about whether the Norway Spruce is a species of tree or not. Stop clouding the issues here. As for your final sentence, see Berig's comment in the preceding section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Michael, why is this so difficult? What am I missing? You seem to be playing WP:IDHT. Can we please invest some mutual good faith into clearing this up? Nobody wants to remove the spruce reference. All we need is to point out that it falls in a different category than the other examples listed. So can we have some suggestion that you would find acceptable instead of making this any more hostile? --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who said that Of course the Norway spruce is a "species of tree"., as if that was an issue (which is isn't). And you were the first to assume bad faith / idioticy with the sheesh comment. Just stick to the issues and address Berig's point. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to work with Berig on this, if you could give it a rest for a moment. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait for Guiness to come up with the appropriate term for this (tree, clone), and settle this matter once and for all. How about this: If Guiness labels it one or the other or a whole new term, would that be accepted by everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.233 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And if Guiness don't come up with such a term? I think we should merge the lists, get rid of this artificial dichotomy and (perhaps) have a column that indicates whether the entry is a single organism, clonal organism or both or whatever. Any objections or better suggestions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

so far, this relies on press agency reports plus national geographics. Giving four links to articles based on the same press release doesn't change that. As long as we don't have an actual academic source for this, that's just a random headlines recentism and not verifiable. I am happy to state that some roots in Norway have been carbon dated to 8000 years ago, but I am not sure to what extent this is relevant to the "oldest tree" topic. An actual academic source would be a good start. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I believe there is very little difference between a "clonal colony" and a tree which has regrown multiple times from the same root system. In essence, they are the same, its just a difference of numbers. I think the list should be divided between "single trees with a definite lifespan" (i.e., a confirmed age by counting tree rings or otherwise) and "clonal trees with an estimated lifespan" (i.e., an estimated age of clonal colonies and young trees with old root systems). Also, the clonal section includes plants that aren't even trees! Grasses and shrubs defnitely do not belong here. As to what these two sections should be named is beyond my expertise, otherwise, this proposed organization seems to make the most sense to me. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

indeed. I guess that's what I was trying to say above. --dab (𒁳) 06:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)