#forest facts

[icarusredwings]

How many damn kids do I have on here?

[mycroftrh]

I would like more information on matriarch trees and weird forest facts in general, please?

So, for outside sources (that have more to say about matriarch trees) there's a whole book written for a general audience called "The Hidden Life of Trees". My top recommendation in general tho is there's a super cool article on the Smithsonian's website that goes remarkably in depth about tree communication and matriarch trees and tree senses, with bits from a lot of different tree scientists. ...I can't link it because Tumblr Be Tumblr but if you google "smithsonian magazine do trees talk to each other" it'll pull up. There's a delightful quote in it from the author of that book: "They call me a 'tree-hugger', which is not true. I don't believe trees respond to hugs."

For now tho I will give you three random forest facts from my forest fact collection.

First is really Tree Facts:

"Tree" is an almost meaningless term. There's not actually a biological definition of "tree". If you select two random "trees" they're probably less closely related to each other than you are to a tubeworm. "Tree" just means "tall plant with a central stem, probably woody, probably has leaves".

"Trees" appear in two plant types; angiosperm (plants with flowers or fruits) and gymnosperm (plants with... not those; they put their seeds in cones and the like). Yes, that does mean an oak is biologically more similar to a daisy than it is to a sequoia.

Angiosperm trees divide basically into three categories; "palms, bananas, and bamboo," "the dinosaur-age ones (inc. magnolias, avocado, and nutmeg)", and "...all of the other ones".

(Note: this means that if anyone tries to be all snooty about "technically, bamboo is grass" you can answer "technically, a maple tree is a flower," because that is exactly as much true.)

The thing I was actually trying to get to tho was the kinds of gymnosperms. Even if we don't restrict it to trees, there are only four categories of gymnosperm. One is gnetopyhta, there are about 70 surviving species you've probably never heard of, tho it is cool that there's one of these over 2,000 years old living in Namibia. One is cycads, which is most of the plants that were around for the dinosaurs, there are several hundred species left. They look a lot like palms. Third is conifers, and that's where you get most of your trees: pine, sequoia, cedar, cypress, juniper, fir, etc.

Fourth is gingko.

Not "gingkos".

Gingko.

The only species left of this entire category of plant is Gingko biloba. It's one of the oldest plant types, from hundreds of millions of years before the entire concept of 'flowering plants'. They almost all went extinct by five million years ago, except for this one, single, "living fossil" species. Both the species and the individual trees can live through darn near anything. There are gingko trees that have thrived after being at the center of the blast radius of an atomic bomb.

If you see a gingko, give it a round of applause - it's a survivor.

Second random forest fact:

I'm gonna introduce you to a specific forest!

His name is Pando. Pando is the world's heaviest living organism, and possibly the world's oldest. He covers 108 acres, weighs more than 6 million kilograms (more than 13 million pounds), and is many thousands of years old. Most current estimates are around fourteen thousand years, but some biologists have suggested up to a million years, and 80,000 is a pretty common guess.

"But you said Pando was a forest," the imagined you in my head points out. Yep! Pando, also called "the trembling giant", is both a forest and a single tree. Pando is a single male quaking aspen.

There are two ways aspens make more of themselves: by pretty 'normal' reproduction, with pollen and flowers, or by root sprouts. With a root sprout, the aspen sends out a root underground and then just... grows another stem up from it. It doesn't make a second plant, just a second stem. They're just as connected to each other as two branches of the same tree, it's just that their 'trunk' is underground. You can test the DNA of each stem, and they'll be genetically identical, just as your left hand is genetically identical to your right hand.

Pando, apparently, decided many thousands of years ago that he just... really, REALLY liked doing that. Why have sex when you can just get bigger. So he's been growing that way ever since. If you get a leaf from one side of Pando, walk across the 108 acres to the other side, and get another leaf, they're genetically identical. The whole forest shares one single root system. (Not a connected root system. Just literally all one root system.)

A single stem of an aspen doesn't live for more than 300 years (generally no more than 130, in Pando's region). So Pando's very first stem has been gone for a very long time. But when one stem dies, he just makes a new one. So, theoretically - barring climate change etcetera - Pando could outlive the mountain he stands on.

Pando: repping the immortal-asexual community since ????? BC.

Third, the type of forest fact you were probably actually after (that you can read more about in the article linked up top):

Trees can tell when they're being "attacked", and will warn other trees to defend themselves. A lot of different kinds of tree do this, in different ways. I'mma talk here about acacias.

Acacia trees get grazed on by giraffes, and the giraffes will strip off enough leaves to harm the trees. Acacias have a defense mechanism against giraffes, which is to pump tannins into their leaves. Tannins taste very bitter and are also somewhat poisonous, so the giraffe will stop eating the tree.

The problem is, a) they can't keep their leaves full of tannins all the time and b) it takes a few minutes to start releasing the tannins. So by the time a tree is being eaten, it's already too late!

So: they warn each other about the danger.

When an acacia is bitten, it senses the injury and releases a distress-signalling chemical into the air. Other trees 'smell' the chemical, telling them that they're about to be attacked, and start pumping out tannins. So by the time the giraffe has finished with the first tree, the other trees are able to protect themselves.

(Don't worry about the first tree. Getting nibbled on once probably won't hurt it, and it'll get warned by another tree next time.)

[opossum-in-cat-disguise]

Can you tell that these are two distinctly different forests? Probably? One is in Dalarna, northern Sweden, and the other in Skåne, the southernmost part of Sweden.

The forest of Dalarna, and Helvetesfallet (Hellsfall?) specifically, is of course predominantly pine, spruce and birch. As most of northern Sweden. The soil is made up of mostly moraine, however the area around Helvetesfallet is characterised by outcrops, with moss and lichen. This leads to there not being a lot of low growing vegetation, as the soil nor rockface is very nutrient rich.

Moving south, a lot of forests in Skåne are deciduous - these instead growing on very nutrient filled soil with a low acid content in the forest floor (since the leaves felled each year counteract an otherwise acidifying process). This doesn't mean that there aren't coniferous forests, it does however mean that a lot will be a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees. This is generally believed to lead to a more balanced soil and a more biodiverse forest.

Anyway, hope I didn't get anything wrong! I'm not educated beyond visiting the woods throughout my life, and learning from professionals C:

[mycroftrh]

I kind of... I feel... like maybe a whole lot of people, and I think this started with scientists and then spread out to laypeople, and the funny thing is scientists are well into getting over it but the word hasn't really gotten back to non-scientists yet -

as I was saying I feel like a lot of people got "don't anthropomorphize, anthropomorphizing is bad" and just accepted that as a general very important life rule without thinking about why, let alone whether it actually applies to all situations

there are absolutely reasons to not anthropomorphize to an extreme, because that can lead you to put human expectations and standards on things that won't live up to them

if you're thinking of your dog as a fur-human to the point that you can't separate things out and you expect a dog to respond to every situation like a human, well, they don't, and you're probably gonna get bit

if you're thinking of a beaver as a fur-human to the point that you expect them to conform to your culture's morality, you get ridiculousness like that thing about 'european beavers are faithful but american beavers cheat on each other'; which could be a problem if, like, people are reluctant to contribute to conservation of beavers because they don't follow their culture's moral standards

and yeah, the more human-y the language you're using is, the easier it can be to forget that other beings won't reliably act like humans and other beings can't be held to human standards, if you're not watching yourself

but that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that "anthropomorphization" - which is a very ill-defined term anyway - is inherently bad in all circumstances!

and the reason there's pushback against this in scientific fields is that blanketly refusing to use terms and concepts that are remotely human-like actually makes you just as blind if not more!

we spent a long time in biological anthropology believing that if you use any word interpretable as implying a non-human could feel an emotion or have any motivation other than mechanical programmed instinct, that was anthropomorphization and Bad

but. like. it turns out that if you insist on only talking about and interpreting chimpanzees and gorillas and, yes, dogs and beavers too, like they're alien robots, and anything a human might do or think or feel they must automatically necessarily not do, you're not going to get much of anywhere at fucking all.

if you refuse to admit that a dog wants to run because "wanting" is a human concept or wants to not be hit because "pain" and "fear" are human concepts you're gonna be just as shitty a trainer as the one who expects the dog to act like a human. (this is how you get the dog equivalent of ABA and it's fucked up and there are several reasons reputable trainers don't do it anymore, which include that it's inhumane and sets the dog up for dangerous aggression, but also it just doesn't work very well.)

if you refuse to admit that beavers have mothers and those mothers take care of their children because "mother" and "care" are Person Words then, first, you're gonna be very confused by their behavior which is dependent on complex family structures and skills passed on from older family members to younger, and second - if you want people to contribute to beaver conservation you're harming your cause way more than the guy having to explain that, Harold, they're non-monogamous.

like! the problem is not that the word "mother" or the word "happy" or whatever is somehow inherently bad! and it's not that they're inaccurate, partly because they generally aren't! it's about the EFFECTS!

if you're trying to elicit donations for a refuge for an almost-extinct species? if you're trying to get people to boycott a company that's destroying habitat? if you're trying to get people to stop using pesticides that kill a charismatic bird?

you're gonna get the best EFFECTS by anthropomorphizing the f u c k out of them.

if you're trying to understand why an adult crow engages in play behavior even when alone; or why an elephant gets lethargic and has reduced appetite after its offspring has died; or why a spider monkey is more active and engages in more social behaviors after being given a high-value food

your research is going to be a lot more EFFECTIVE if you're willing to acknowledge that not every single aspect of the human experience is 100% unique because, to be honest, we're not that special, actually.

if you're talking about how the tree in your backyard droops like it's sad and you want to give it a hug

then the EFFECT is that there's no effect and it does not hecking matter, go hug your tree and don't let anyone stop you.

if either: you and your audience in this situation are able to remember that non-humans will not always act like humans, even though they share some traits; and it is not appropriate to hold non-humans to human moral standards

or: it does not have negative effects in this situation if you or your audience don't remember those things (and maybe even has positive effects)

then acknowledging that humans and non-humans have some things in common and some of the same words can apply to both of our experiences is not! automatically! bad!

[laweekly01]

Amazing Mangrove Tree Facts You Should Know

Mangrove trees are more than just coastal plants. They protect shorelines, support wildlife, and create a unique ecosystem in places like the Sundarbans. Read these simple and interesting facts.

[testfellow-blog]

Forest Facts GK Quiz

Test Name Forest Facts QuizSubject Category World GeographyTest Type Online MCQs Based QuizScore / Questions

[clum4me]

Forest fact

Cupid use to beat Forest everyday and starve forest but before he could die Cupid would find a family camping and would bring them back; forcing them into Forest’s room where forest would be overcome by hunger and devour the family.

Once it was done Cupid would taunt Forest that he just killed innocent people and children. Sometimes even pets since forest was fond of animals.

[ask-the-forest-prince]

fun fact

Forest can turn from fully human looking to full deer looking