Do Trees ever die of Old age

[Grant Bowie]

Hi Brett,

good topic.

How about the opposite effect.

I have heard that Labanese cedars live about 1,000 years in their natural state. Highish altitude in valleys, good drainage etc.(Thier natural range of course!)

In England they grow so quickly they exhaust themselves and die after about 400 years. The opposite effect to the Bristlecone where it grows so little each year.

Grant

[Bretts]

However I am still on the fence as I also subscribe to the belief that all things that live, must die.

Hey Dario
We are faced with death every day of our lives so it is not surprising this is a hard thing to grasp but I kinda like the idea of living forever

I think it would be interested to look at some of the oldest living trees as examples.

That's the spirit Rowan I did link where I got that quote from one of the examples of the oldest living trees the Pando
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... e-gallery/
The oldest tree is debatable but this article claims Pando to be 1 million years old.

This is another root system type old tree which is claimed to be almost 10000 years old
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -tree.html

I think these are the oldest reported trees that are free standing and not a sucker root system
Almost 5000 years old
http://suisekiart.com/2008/07/27/the-ol ... -on-earth/

Not a great deal of info hear but a good list with pictures
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/pl ... ings-earth

[Pup]

[quoteDario
We are faced with death every day of our lives so it is not surprising this is a hard thing to grasp but I kinda like the idea of living forever

That is one scary thought, what does Danica say about that

[Bretts]

She said I should give up the smokes

[GavinG]

Thanks Rowan, you were clear in what you said, and it's the most factual contribution yet. There's a sort of "tail" at the end of each gene, called a telomere, and each time the gene replicates, the telomere shortens. For some types of cell it's quicker, others slower. Then gradually the cells fail to replicate, and the organism fails. That's the basic reason why we humans have an upper limit of about 120 years, as a species. Trees have genes, and genes will only replicate a limited number of times. Obviously, growing conditions, as Grant says, can influence the process. And the process of diminishing returns also applies. How high is it, how thick is it, can it pump the fluids up just that bit further?

Bonsai trees as they age will become less efficient at what they do, with very narrow growth rings meaning slender transport cells. There's also the accumulation of scars - for my money (which ain't a lot at the moment) trees when they age become marginal, and then some disease will take them out.

It's not philosophical or speculative folks, its just that we end up getting tattered genes.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gavin

[Bretts]

Hi Brett,

good topic.

How about the opposite effect.

I have heard that Labanese cedars live about 1,000 years in their natural state. Highish altitude in valleys, good drainage etc.(Thier natural range of course!)

In England they grow so quickly they exhaust themselves and die after about 400 years. The opposite effect to the Bristlecone where it grows so little each year.

Grant

Looking at the oldest trees (at least the ones that are not suckers from one massive root) they are the slow growing variety and one reference stated this made the wood tough?
But whether a slow growing tree growing faster reduces it's life span or a fast growing tree growing slower increases it life span that gets more confusing
Might be closer to what Rowan was suggesting ?
My first thought is that if the tree got to it's height and or girth limit faster then it seems sensible to think it would run into the trouble faced by an older tree sooner

As to the specific Lebanese cedars of England I thought that would be impossible to verify one way or the other with google at least but I did find some interesting info.
It seems the first Lebanese cedars where planted in England less than 400 years ago and apart from the ones that where chopped down or lost in a hurricane it seems they are still going. Or maybe this info is out of date and they have recently run into trouble

ENGLAND

When seeds of Cedrus libani reached London in mid-17thC they were planted by Sir Hans Sloane in the Chelsea Physic Garden. In the 18thC the cedar of Lebanon was the only exotic tree used by Capability Brown in his landscapes. In 1761 the Duke of Richmond planted 1,000 cedar trees at Goodwood, many of which were demolished by a hurricane in 1987. Michael Pembroke in “Trees of History and Romance” (2009) says Cedrus libani trees at Wilton House in Wiltshire are older. Edward Pococke, first Arabic scholar in England, travelled to Aleppo to become Chaplain to the Levant Company. On his return in 1636 he brought back seeds from the cedar trees on Mount Lebanon and gave some to the Earl of Pembroke. One was planted in 1638 which was felled in 1874.

HRH The Prince of Wales in “The Garden at Highgrove” (2000) writes about the towering, majestic Cedrus libani, to the western side of the house, which is 200 years old and “lifts the heart”. It overhangs the Thyme Walk designed by the Prince and Lady Salisbury. ‘Highgrove and The Cedar Tree, Gloucestershire 1995’, reproduced from a watercolour painting by the Prince, appears on tins of Duchy Original organic biscuits baked in Scotland. In 2000 The Prince planted three new cedars of Lebanon at Highgrove.

I just realised this info is from our National Arboretum website so I guess they are planting some in Canberra. Does this have anything to do with what you heard Grant?

I did a search on the cedars of Wilton house as they seem to be the oldest in England and they seem to still be going strong. Check out the pics they look fantastic with the House in the background
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisguise ... 78/detail/

[Bretts]

Thanks Rowan, you were clear in what you said, and it's the most factual contribution yet. There's a sort of "tail" at the end of each gene, called a telomere, and each time the gene replicates, the telomere shortens. For some types of cell it's quicker, others slower. Then gradually the cells fail to replicate, and the organism fails. That's the basic reason why we humans have an upper limit of about 120 years, as a species. Trees have genes, and genes will only replicate a limited number of times. Obviously, growing conditions, as Grant says, can influence the process. And the process of diminishing returns also applies. How high is it, how thick is it, can it pump the fluids up just that bit further?

Bonsai trees as they age will become less efficient at what they do, with very narrow growth rings meaning slender transport cells. There's also the accumulation of scars - for my money (which ain't a lot at the moment) trees when they age become marginal, and then some disease will take them out.

It's not philosophical or speculative folks, its just that we end up getting tattered genes.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gavin

It seems that is debatable
http://earthsky.org/biodiversity/what-m ... op-growing
Interesting as I had never heard that theory before.
My biggest problem here is that if we took a cutting of a very old tree it seems to me that cutting can also go on to become a very old tree
Also dna studies of very old sucker systems show no change over great distance

[Dario]

Hi Bretts,

Hey Dario
We are faced with death every day of our lives so it is not surprising this is a hard thing to grasp but I kinda like the idea of living forever

Don't get me wrong, I also love the idea of trees being able to live forever! I am just undecided either way.

It is absolutely correct that cell duplication in humans progressively deteriorates and that is how we age and eventually die, but plant physiology and human physiology are entirely different.
Cheers, Dario.

[Bretts]

Still looking into this but once I searched with telomere tree age I found the perfect study for the discussion.

Basicly skimming the article it seems that there is no degrading of cells in the long lived Bristlcone pine but it seems there is in the shorter lived trees.

http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/691/cv/kle ... lomere.pdf

Also my wish of living forever may be hidden in the answer

What secrets do the long-lived bristlecone
pines possess that confer such great longevity
and what are their limits, if any, in regard to
maximum lifespan? These secrets remain hidden
for now; however, finding the source of the
great longevity evident in bristlecone pines
(perhaps through the presence of stable telomerase
activity and preservation of telomere
length within its cells, especially within meristems,
with age) may enable the development of
a therapy to afford humans similar longevity
(perhaps through preservation of telomere
length in somatic cells via endogenous induction
or exogenous delivery of telomerase). The
implications of studying longevity in long-lived
bristlecones is best summarized by Schulman7
himself: “The capacity of these trees to live so
fantastically long may, when we come to understand
it fully, perhaps serve as a guidepost on the road to
the understanding of longevityin general.”

[Bretts]

This is a great article as it reviews the studies done to date and the various possible causes from Weeds to Methuselah arguably the oldest living tree.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/pr ... 310174.pdf

It seems they don't really know yet whether the telomere causes the death of trees but it sure is interesting. My biggest question would still be if a tree's cells degrade how come cuttings of an old tree can go on living
Sounds like a great question for Dr Karl

[Dario]

Hi all,
[/quote]
It is absolutely correct that cell duplication in humans progressively deteriorates and that is how we age and eventually die, but plant physiology and human physiology are entirely different. [/quote]
Trees age entirely differently to humans and therefore we cannot apply our concept and understanding of ageing and transfer it to trees...it is natural for us to think like this but it just doesn't work like that.
For example, a tree in nature/the wild may be over a hundred years old and be 30 metres tall, but the leaves on the tree will only be up to a few years old...for example the newest leaves that are just opening from the buds at the very top of this 100 year old tree are merely a few weeks old.
Same goes forn the cambium...as it divides/reproduces, the outside of the cambium becomes the phloem and the inside becomes the xylem. So the actual cambium is only ever up to 2 or 3 yrs old and when it regenerates itself it pushes the oldest (outer most) portions of itself to become phloem/bark, and the oldest (inner most) portions of itself to become xylem/sapwood. That is how the growth rings are formed/generated, but the actual living cambium always remains young.
It is certainly a paradox when we think of it in terms of applying our understanding of ageing to it.
Now I am obviously no expert, quite the opposite, and I certainly don't profess to have the answers...but I hope that makes sense (I know I explained it rather poorly).
So...you can take a cutting from a hundred yr old tree and it will go on living because the actual cambium of the cutting (or any growing tree for that matter), remains constantly young.
Cheers, Dario.

[Bretts]

It seems long lived trees like the bristlecone may not have an expiry date even as a natural tree But it seems that there is at least a possible reason that short lived trees could have a finite life as Bonsai but maybe Bodi is right that there is no answer at the moment as the scientists are unsure until further experiments are done whether it is just a height issue. I will endeavour to hit up Dr Karl on this one next week as there is alot that just makes no sense at the moment why that would be the case as Dario points out some of these issues.

But in the mean time maybe we could list a few of the Bonsai that have outlived there life as a natural tree.
I tried to search for Ray's Wattle but could not find it. (The search engine on the site can be funny ) I think it was mentioned as a bout 25 years old a few years ago?

PeterH has one that he is unsure of the actual age but maybe he has more info now. Bugger silly search engine won't find that for me either now

[Bretts]

Well I asked Dr Karl and didn't really get anywhere yet. He seemed to agree that trees do have cells that degrade but when I asked what that means when a cutting from an old tree would go on to again have another full life he didn't know the answer and just put it to hoping someone else will have the answer
To me cells degrading makes no sense with that question unanswered.

[Goff]

Your a radio star!! Well I take it was you talking to dr carl

[Vice]

Well I asked Dr Karl and didn't really get anywhere yet. He seemed to agree that trees do have cells that degrade but when I asked what that means when a cutting from an old tree would go on to again have another full life he didn't know the answer and just put it to hoping someone else will have the answer
To me cells degrading makes no sense with that question unanswered.

I actually heard that segment and thought, "I bet that is someone from Ausbonsai about that "do tree's die of old age" thread.
My opinion is that while there is telomere reduction in almost all non-immortal cells the reduction only occurs when the cells divide. Now with Trees and plants the cell division is different in the fact that the main trunk of the tree is of one age where a sprout from a branch is a different age. So you can have a Tree with a trunk 100 years old and a branch 50 years old and a twig 5 years old. A new sprout has a reset telomere length.
When the telomere reduction in the trunk reaches critical it begins to lose it's ability to fight off invaders/parasites, transfer nutrients and water from it's outer branches to it's roots and visa versa and the tree eventually dies.
So in summary, a branch is only as old as when it sprouted so if you take a cutting from that branch and grow another tree, and then take another cutting etc etc, you could have a tree living forever in the "my grandfathers axe" paradoxical way. Or you could have a cutting from a cutting from a cutting from a cutting and still say you have a tree 1000 years old.