California trees 'smart response' to drought

sequoia_treesVia WUWT reader NEO in “Tips and Notes” – Research ecologist Nathan Stephenson crawled around magnificent Giant Forest, checking young giant sequoias for damage from California’s three-year drought.

Instead of stressed-out plants, he found young trees that looked pretty happy, he said. But at some point, he glanced upward and saw something startling.

“The foliage had died back on a much larger sequoia above me,” said Stephenson, a sequoia authority who works for the U.S. Geological Survey. “It’s not happening to all of them, but there is a subset of bigger trees showing stress. It makes sense, but it surprised me a little.”

The brown needles on a 3,000-year-old tree are a smart response to drought, Stephenson said. The trees dump their old foliage when they get drought-stressed and focus on new growth.

But the bigger takeaway: Nature may hold a few surprises as the climate warms this century for giant sequoias and other plants and animals. California’s intense drought is giving scientists a valuable sneak peek.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/10/18/4184871_giant-sequoias-may-surprise-us.html?sp=/99/217/&rh=1#storylink=cpy

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CodeTech
October 20, 2014 4:19 am

I can’t even describe my disgust at people arrogant enough to think that “this” drought is something like the “worst ever”… have they completely stopped teaching History in California? Or maybe even teaching the meaning of the word history???
Last line… valuable “sneak peek”? At what, the uber mega-droughts coming from the dreaded “Climate Change”??? Just whacked.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 20, 2014 6:27 am

It appears, that there were much worse droughts in western North America about a thousand years ago.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/cook/2009_Cook_IPCC_paleo-drought.pdf

Reply to  CodeTech
October 20, 2014 1:37 pm

I, too, am outraged at the assumption that the climate will warm this century. It certainly might. It also might cool. The blithe assumption that we know what will happen in the teeth of a zero percent prediction record so far is disgusting.

Jimbo
Reply to  CodeTech
October 20, 2014 2:21 pm

Here we go again! If California NEVER got droughts lasting several years this century, THAT would be abnormal. Here is the IPCC stating that fact.

IPCC
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Multiple proxies, including tree rings, sediments, historical documents and lake sediment records make it clear that the past 2 kyr included periods with more frequent, longer and/or geographically more extensive droughts in North America than during the 20th century (Stahle and Cleaveland, 1992; Stahle et al., 1998; Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998; Forman et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2004b; Hodell et al., 2005; MacDonald and Case, 2005). Past droughts, including decadal-length ‘megadroughts’ (Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998), are most likely due to extended periods of anomalous SST (Hoerling and Kumar, 2003; Schubert et al., 2004; MacDonald and Case, 2005; Seager et al., 2005), but remain difficult to simulate with coupled ocean-atmosphere models. Thus, the palaeoclimatic record suggests that multi-year, decadal and even centennial-scale drier periods are likely to remain a feature of future North American climate, particularly in the area west of the Mississippi River.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
October 20, 2014 2:37 pm

It gets even worse regarding the Giant Sequoia. They need fire for their reproductive cycles.

Abstract
Title Giant sequoia ecology. Fire and reproduction.
Authors Harvey, H. T.; Shellhammer, H. S.; Stecker, R. E.
Book Giant sequoia ecology. Fire and reproduction. 1980, recd. 1983 pp. xxii + 182 pp.
Record Number 19830685517
….The role of insects in giant sequoia reproduction; Birds and mammals, fire, and giant sequoia reproduction; Douglas squirrels [Tamiasciurus douglasi] and sequoia regeneration; and Conclusions and management implications. It is suggested that prescribed burning should be used carefully in giant sequoia management: hot, localized fires appeared to be the best for seedling development……..
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19830685517.html;jsessionid=2FEBFFB334139481E4F2B1F1131208CC

It’s worse than we thought!

California Department of Parks and Recreation
“Fire and the Giant Sequoia”
…..Fire helps giant sequoias in many ways. Small, green cones full of seeds awaiting germination grow near the crown of the trees, yet without fire or insects to crack open the cone, the seeds remain trapped inside. Green cones can live with viable seeds inside them for up to twenty years. Fire dries out the cones, enabling them to crack open and deposit their seeds on the forest floor……
http://www.150.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27588

Reply to  CodeTech
October 21, 2014 12:16 am

And if it does warm the Pacific ocean – there will be less drought in CA. The cool waters off the west coast of the USA are CA’s natural air conditioning, which makes it relatively dry. Dry air warms easier with less water vaporizing to soak up heat. When the Pacific ocean warms we get more moisture and more rain… Just sayin’

LordCaledus
Reply to  CodeTech
October 21, 2014 7:28 am

Forget centuries or millenia, there were worse droughts less than ONE century ago!

MattN
October 20, 2014 4:21 am

Do they really think that trees that can live 1000 years or more can’t survive 1 drought? They’ve probably survived 10 already.

Alx
Reply to  MattN
October 20, 2014 7:09 am

Perhaps they think that climate and ecological history started all at once with the first computer climate model. It’s the big climate bang theory.

klem
Reply to  MattN
October 20, 2014 7:54 am

La..la ..la… this drought is man made and its the worst ever….la la la….I can’t hear you….la la la…

Reply to  MattN
October 20, 2014 7:55 am

Those you collectively refer to as “they” are prepared to believe in whatever they think will make them appear “heroic” and to tell Reality and common sense to take a hike.
For the majority of the libcultists the environment, like any other victim class, is merely a prop in their own personal Grand Melodramas of faux heroism and courage and its true value is in giving them another opportunity to *prove* something grand, glorious – and false – about themselves.
Its about THEM. Its all about THEM. Its only about THEM.

exSSNcrew
Reply to  Realist
October 22, 2014 12:37 pm
Brute
Reply to  MattN
October 20, 2014 11:15 am

There was a time when I bothered with the big mainstream warmist sites. On at least one of them I read on its “about page” (or some such) that we are now experiencing the hottest temperatures in the history of the planet. Mind-blowing.

Don E
Reply to  MattN
October 21, 2014 8:14 am

Extreme drought kills trees and other terrestrial life. I think that is part of evolution. Some members of the species survive. That is why they have been around for thousands of years.

hunter
October 20, 2014 4:27 am

Redwoods have survived much worse droughts. But for the climate obsessed every day is a new day, and every new day is a way to make climate the center of their attention.

Tom in Florida
October 20, 2014 4:33 am

Amazing what one can learn by simply shutting off the computer models and going out in the field and observing.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 20, 2014 8:49 am

Tom,
Agree on the field trips (just like I did in elementary school when we wanted to learn something real world).
While I help design and build satellites and science instruments involved in some of the measurements we talk about here on WUWT, I am also a SCUBA instructor. I had a recent customer from NCAR here in Boulder who wanted to try scuba diving in our pool to see if he liked it. He is apparently in a group writing reports assessing coral reef health and impacts of global warming. When asked where he’s been snorkeling in the world, he listed two “tropical” locations relatively close to the US mainland. In trying to convince him how important getting scuba certified would be to his work, he seemed indifferent and never came back to get his certification as a diver. How can you possibly be an expert on coral reefs without going in the water?
Bruce

Duster
Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
October 20, 2014 9:43 am

I had a classmate in geology whose goal was to work only in a laboratory. He detested field work – worrying about everything from poison oak to bears and rattle snakes, complained about sweat and dirt(!).

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 21, 2014 12:19 am

Yes – that when it’s dry leaves or needles turn brown and die off. Wow – who’d a thunk it… sarc/

October 20, 2014 4:43 am

“as the climate warms” That should be a thesaurus entry, or a ‘one click’ spell check item nowadays. It is meaningless, but that doesn’t seem to stop its endless recycling. Smarm.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
October 20, 2014 5:57 am

And if the climate doesn’t warm this century, nature will still have a few surprises for us. Actually, I predict a lot of surprises.

schitzree
Reply to  michael hart
October 20, 2014 7:20 am

To a lot a people, the Climate not warming IS what’s going to surprise them.

October 20, 2014 4:50 am

I think we need to bring in a tree ring specialist at this point for an option on what to look for. It’s not what he is looking at. We need the trees to talk, Twin Towers sort of.

Keith Willshaw
October 20, 2014 5:01 am

Imagine that , the native trees evolved to tolerate the droughts that periodically occur.
I am only surprised that the researchers concerned have the nerve to call themselves scientists.

Leon
October 20, 2014 5:05 am

The Giant Sequoias have seen this before:
New York Times: July 19.1994: “Beginning about 1100 years ago (long before any human influence on CO2), what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years, and the second 140 years. Each was more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.” It may be politically convenient to blame the current drought on Catastrophic Anthropologic Global Warming, but it would not be honest.

Doug Huffman
October 20, 2014 5:17 am

Seniority is proof of something, among trees and humans.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 20, 2014 5:19 am

I think citation of N. N. Taleb’s Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder might be on point.

ferdberple
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 20, 2014 7:08 am

re:antifragile and the Green Lumber Fallacy
================================
Researchers assume the trees are dropping their needles due to drought, because they only studies the trees during times of drought. They need to study the trees during times of no drought, to see if needle drop stops (it doesn’t).

Duster
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 20, 2014 10:14 am

Needle-drop rates vary with stress. The size of stomata of leaves change in size according stresses and replacing needles that are adapted to a lower or higher stress increase the plant’s metabolic efficiency. Plants actively adapt to environment just animals do.

Nigel S
Reply to  Doug Huffman
October 20, 2014 5:28 am

Perhaps the old trees are helping out the yougsters by letting a bit more light in. Perhaps they communicate (hi Sou this one’s for you!).

Randy in Ridgecrest
October 20, 2014 5:25 am

I just hiked through the Freeman Creek grove, the eastern most Sequoia grove in the Sierra Nevada. I saw some foliage die back on a minor portion of the older trees, none on the younger trees. For the most part the trees seemed “happy”.
Up on the Kern Plateau the Red Cedars are not doing well in places- I assume it is drought related, The Junipers, which can be huge and magnificent, look stressed, but I think they will prevail. Further east the bark beetle is doing in the Pinyons on the dryer ridgetops and mountain slopes. I’m guessing the mountainscape will become a little less green as the Pinyons are more sparsely distributed to use the available water.

October 20, 2014 5:34 am

“Research ecologist Nathan Stephenson crawled around magnificent Giant Forest, checking young giant sequoias…”
How about: “… research ecologist crawled around an abutment of the Golden Gate Bridge checking out the affect of the drought on the structural integrity of the bridge…”
Is the guy a forester, botanist or what?

Duster
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 20, 2014 10:32 am

He’s an ecologist. Ecology is a discipline in and of itself. From Google, he works for the United States Geological Survey, Western Environmental Research Center. At its most general ecology studies the flows of energy and materials (nutrients) in living communities. At more detailed levels it may study the interactions of individual species with their environment or the interactions of local biological communities. Apparently he’s been contaminated by working around a bunch of geologists who shake their heads and mutter every time someone starts rambling about AGW and went outside and looked around.
Every geologist has had one or more courses in historical geology. Because of that, every geologist also knows that there is no evidence in the geological record of any climate sensitivity to CO2. Quite the reverse. You can, especially in academia, encounter geologists who word research results and grant applications to at least tip the hat toward CO2 and climate, but every one of them knows better.

phlogiston
October 20, 2014 5:37 am

Warmists are sick people. They have some kind of Nietsche-esque death-wish.
Looking at life they see only death.
Its a ghoulish necrophilia. They really do need help. They cant celebrate the wonder and beauty of nature. All they can think of is looking for signs of death from climate. If they dont find any they make some up.

Reply to  phlogiston
October 20, 2014 7:08 am

I agree.
Just two weeks ago I was walking in a grove of old redwoods on the “Avenue of Giants.” There are not so many tourists there, and the magnitude of the grandeur made the few humans in the grove walk softly, in awe, as if afraid to disturb sleeping giants, or perhaps out of reverence for the sanctity of a sort of cathedral. It was quiet and cool in that shade, though around ninety out on the highway.
I was conversing quietly with a young man who told me engineers had long been in awe of the trees, because it apparently seemed physically impossible to pump water up over 250 feet, but the trees somehow managed to lift the water up over 300 feet. Only recently have engineers figured out how the trees do it, (and they are still arguing about whether the solution they have come with is valid.)
Considering the difficulties of lifting the water that high, it might make sense that taller trees have more signs of drought damage. It also explains why the trees soar up so high, and then taper so rapidly to blunt tops. However all this is merely facts and figures. There are no numbers that can measure the sheer grandeur of such trees, and it is a very great pity when people are not inspired to think higher thoughts, and instead cramp their brains, trying to think of ways to link redwoods and sequoias, in a single concluding paragraph, to the depressing, grant-grubbing subject of Global Warming.

Rob Potter
Reply to  Caleb
October 20, 2014 8:23 am

” the magnitude of the grandeur made the few humans in the grove walk softly, in awe, as if afraid to disturb sleeping giants, or perhaps out of reverence for the sanctity of a sort of cathedral”
That’s an excellent point Caleb. As a hard-nosed agricultural scientist, I am always fighting against the emotional responses of people to “nature”, but when I walk through a grove of big trees I lower my voice. Awe? Respect? No idea, but big trees are certainly worthy of something.

Duster
Reply to  Caleb
October 20, 2014 11:37 am

The principle ecological limit in an old growth forest is access to light. The various species that compose the climax forest are likely to have reached very similar heights competing for sunlight. That is one reason that many trees don’t bother retaining branches near the ground as they mature, unless they are in savanna-like environments. Lower branches in dim environments do not pay off the metabolic investment. Since nearly all the parks were logged to some degree before becoming parks, they tend to be more open than the original forest. A ‘net search will show that the historical accounts of very large trees reports very similar sizes in the 19th and early twentieth centuries among Cedar, Douglas fir and Redwood in North America. In Australia the same size ranges are reported for 19th century Eucalyptus. An upper limit on tree height seems to fall between 400 and 500 feet, probably closer to 400.
The height of trees in modern forests is very likely more related to logging and lumber preferences than to something “natural” about the specific species. Redwood is a less desirable wood for many construction purposes since it tends to be brittle. It is very rot resistant though, and was used in California to foot brick foundations in foundation trenches (no longer permissible under UBC). It was also used as flooring, placed directly on leveled, compacted soil. Douglas fir has a higher specific gravity, is less brittle and has a higher elastic modulus. But it does rot more rapidly than redwood when not protected. It is a superior construction wood and was in demand for bridges, trestles and wall framing and still is.
If you research the political battles over the establishment of the big parks that preserve redwoods, the redwoods were a concession that allowed continued cutting of Douglas fir that were easily as magnificent as redwood. The main time of demand for redwood was passing, and the remaining old growth simply wasn’t going to last much longer if logging continued. Only a few corporate raiders were really pinched.

goldminor
Reply to  Caleb
October 20, 2014 2:55 pm

I had always heard that the moist air coming off of the Pacific was important to their health and ability to grow so large. There used to be extensive seasonal fog in areas along most of the coast all the way up until the mid 1970s. Then there was a decrease in the strength and duration of the fog belt for decades. At the beginning of this year my brother asked me if I remembered the old fog of the 1950/60s. I replied affirmative and he responded “well it’s back”. I remember fog where I couldn’t see the buildings across the street, and on occasion even heavier than that, in San Francisco.

jpatrick
October 20, 2014 5:49 am

Clues as to what redwoods can withstand can be found in Florissant Fossil Beds in Colorado. Petrified redwoods from about 35 million years ago.

richard
October 20, 2014 6:09 am

not sure what the point of the article was-
They have already established the important part-
“They’ve done it before. Sequoias, the largest trees on the planet, have lived through a centuries-long dry spell in the last 1,200 years, according to the Tree Ring Laboratory at the University of Arizona”

pekke
October 20, 2014 6:49 am

” As Bekker and his co-authors report in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association, the west’s climate usually fluctuates far more than it did in the 1900s. The five previous centuries each saw more years of extremely dry and extremely wet climate conditions.”
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-tree-reveal-nightmare-droughts-west.html
Looks like the 1900s been a walk in the park in west US, climate change will fix that.

October 20, 2014 6:50 am

I may be a bit off but aren’t arid and desert environments populated with flora and fauna adapted to said arid and desert environs? Honestly…..

October 20, 2014 6:52 am

Someone should call michael mann and have him cut 50 of them down to measure the rings to see if it is drought or warming. It might help the proxies to have a larger database after all what’s a few giant sequoias compared to the catastrophe of a planet ~2 degrees warmer?

ferdberple
October 20, 2014 7:00 am

Here in the Pacific North West we have no shortage of rainfall, yet evergreens routinely shed their older needles in favor of new growth. The reason is clearly not drought, it is sunlight.
The older needles are shaded from the sunlight by new growth, such that it is more efficient for the trees to drop these needles as they are not producing any benefit to the tree.
Carried to the extreme, we find trees like the Douglas Fir that drop old branches because they are not receiving sunlight. It is not unusual to find a 200 foot high tree bare of branches for the lower 150 feet.
One of the logging hazards when felling trees is that the vibration of the chainsaw will shake lose a branch that is ready to drop. A 1000+ pound branch falling from 100+ feet can spoil your day.

Neil Jordan
Reply to  ferdberple
October 20, 2014 12:28 pm

The branch is called a “widow maker”, according to “Woods Words” by W.F. McCullogh.

goldminor
Reply to  ferdberple
October 20, 2014 3:42 pm

A 10 pound branch falling a 100 feet would ruin your day. I worked in the woods in the 1970s. You learned to stay sharp as a logger. My hard hat took a few good knocks during those days.

ferdberple
October 20, 2014 7:12 am

Browning of Evergreens
Autumn Needle Shed
The loss of older interior needles in the fall is a natural process, which is often confused with injury, disease or insects. This process usually goes unnoticed since the needles on the inside of the conifer are concealed by the foliage on the exterior of the tree. Leaf drop on evergreens usually takes place gradually, but there are occasions when many leaves will discolour simultaneously, and the tree or shrub may appear to be dying.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex4144

Alx
October 20, 2014 7:17 am

Climate science being what it is, finds it is more interesting to take one event from one species, in one region, in one selected time frame and come up with a plethora of generalized theories about anything or everything. In cognitive physcology, it is one of the ways we delude ourselves, the term for it I think is called over-generalization.

Robertvd
October 20, 2014 7:18 am

“The brown needles on a 3,000-year-old tree are a smart response to drought, Stephenson said. ”
So that means that during at least 3000 years there has been no dramatic climate change .

Tucker
October 20, 2014 7:19 am

From the article:
he glanced upward and saw something startling.
“The foliage had died back on a much larger sequoia above me. It makes sense, but it surprised me a little.”
The brown needles on a 3,000-year-old tree are a smart response to drought, Stephenson said. The trees dump their old foliage when they get drought-stressed and focus on new growth.
*************************************
So which is it? If Stephenson knows that stressed trees dump old foliage, why was he “startled” and “surprised” when he saw it??

Rob Potter
Reply to  Tucker
October 20, 2014 8:27 am

Stephenson saw what he expected, but when he was interviewed by a journalist some words were put into his mouth to give the puff piece some ‘colour’. Science by press release all over again.

Duster
Reply to  Tucker
October 20, 2014 11:41 am

He had to be startled, or be attacked by climate faithful. This way, the knowledge is is slipped into closed minds by being lubricated with a little “surprise.”

ferdberple
October 20, 2014 7:23 am

more: Autumn Needle Shed
“Any factors that increase stress on evergreens will intensify autumn needle drop. ”
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex4144
===
Apparently the Alberta Department of Agriculture knows a lot more about evergreens shedding leaves than does the U.S. Geological Survey.
“But at some point, he glanced upward and saw something startling.”
Something that the Alberta department of Agriculture already knows and has documented. Apparently a bunch of ex-cowboys living in a place where trees barely grow, that make a living cleaning up the oil that spilled out of the mountains when the Rockies were formed, apparently they know a lot more about trees than the Yanks living to the south.
That is what happens when you are spared the advantages of the “made in California” educational system.

W. Sander
October 20, 2014 7:46 am

Do you remember the German Waldsterben-hysteria in the 1980’s?. It was the same effect: The climate hat grown drier, the tree crowns thinned out. In 1994 it was all over. The climate became wetter again, the crowns becamer denser, the forests survived and the country had only lost some billion D-Marks. It was much cheaper than the war on CO2.

James Strom
Reply to  W. Sander
October 20, 2014 12:21 pm

I do remember that. What amazes me is that we think trees, some with a lifespan of up to a millennium have evolved to handle droughts. Evolution in fruit flies, with a lifespan measured in days, or bacteria, which produce new generations in hours or minutes, is quite comprehensible. But to live for 1 000 years, have droughts of perhaps 20 years, have die-offs and natural selection make incremental changes leading to strategies of drought resistance, requires an almost unimaginable length of time. Yet, go to California or Germany to look for these trees, and there they are.

littlepeaks
October 20, 2014 7:56 am

“Smart trees?” (Sorry, just had to say that.)

Reply to  littlepeaks
October 28, 2014 6:32 am

Yes, I’m with you on that. It’s enough to give one a headache. But what do you expect, they are in California, they have to be “smart”. Everything is special in California. In fact, I think the whole state has special needs. But, then I go on. I’ve said enough.