this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
30 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

10063 readers
2 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems a little odd that other crops have been cultivated to literally suit people's tastes and interests, yet many trees...Seemingly not as much?

I recognize the growth cycles are much longer, in some(many?) cases far exceeding individual human lives, but whole civilizations have been relying on trees for ages. Have none, not even isolated parts of them, been stable enough to take on this experiment?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They might look that way but they aren't. It's why Old growth was the choice basically forever. It's also why we make assumptions about certain kinds of wood, because historically it was old growth being mined to produce it.

Depends on species, but old growth starts in a suppressed canopy. An old growth sapling might be 200 years old before it sees sunlight. It might take 400 more years to see itself as a canopy dominant. Then it might live for an additional 200-2000 years depending on species and location.

This makes the wood incredibly dense and rot resistant. And it simply can't be recreated because it's the physical conditions that determine these qualities.

The fact is that old growth forests which are now less than 3% of what they once were, they weren't harvested. That implies they can be regenerated. They were strip mined.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I grew up in Oregon, it is so sad what we did to our forests. Only managed "forests" are left, with their even rows of stick trees