Centuries Old and Busily Adapting

Peripheral (left) and axial (right) leaves - Chron photo

Redwood trees have been studied for over a century by scientists, lumber companies, and environmentalists. The groups have different agendas, of course, but no one was expecting surprising new knowledge to arise, such as the functioning of their leaves.

The trees’ peripheral leaves, like those on most trees, are food producers that convert sunlight into sugar through photosynthesis. But the axial leaves serve an entirely different role, researchers found — absorbing water...

According to the [UC Davus] study, published in the American Journal of Botany, a large redwood can absorb 14 gallons of water in just the first hour after its leaves become wet...

In some trees, when leaves get wet, they inhibit the photosynthesis process, the study found, But in redwoods, the different leaf types allow photosynthesis to continue — even in the rain and fog.

“Having leaves that aren’t for photosynthesis is in itself surprising,” said Alana Chin, a doctoral student in ecology at UC Davis and lead author of the study. “If you’re a tree, you don’t want to have a leaf that’s not photosynthesizing unless there’s a very good reason for it.”

The study also found that redwoods can change the location of their leaves depending on the climate. Along the west North Coast, water-absorbing leaves are found on the lower branches, leaving the upper branches for the sun-collecting and photosynthesizing leaves. In drier southern areas, the opposite is true with the water-gathering leaves near the tops of the trees where they can catch more rain and fog.

Muir Woods redwoods, 2007

Redwoods have not only developed specialized axial leaves to absorb water, but they move them higher or lower depending on climate conditions.

Walking through a redwood forest is a near-mystical experience. The coolness, the quiet, the towering trees, and even the forest smells are far removed from the urban and suburban worlds where most park-goers dwell.

But the interior life of the redwoods is not so quiet. They're observing and adapting to the changing weather in order to survive. To the science-minded, like your humble blogger fancies himself to be, that makes us appreciate them even more.

Apple Woods

Conservation Intl: "Mangrove forests cover just 0.1
percent of the planet’s surface but store up to 10
times more carbon per hectare than terrestrial forests."

Apple is planting forests to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:

The tech giant, Conservation International and Goldman Sachs have launched a $200 million Restore Fund meant to remove "at least" 1 million metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year by investing in forest restoration projects...

The firm wasn't shy about its dependence on this project. It estimated that it would only cut 75 percent of its emissions by 2030 through improvements to products and the supply chain, and carbon capture would be necessary for the rest.

Comments:

1) Normally your humble blogger looks askance at projects that stray far afield from a company's line of business. However, a successful company like Apple is allowed some leeway. Besides a $200 million investment represents only .01% of Apple's market capitalization.

2) Apple can forecast that nine years from now it will significantly fall short of its carbon-neutral goal. That's confident planning.

3) I worked in a vertically integrated (planting trees, harvesting, saw mill operations) forest-products company for five years and learned how a well-managed operation can be both profitable and sustainable. And that was before the benefits of carbon-capture became important.

4) Many environmentalists have realized from years of wildfires that the philosophy of keeping human beings away is not the best way to preserve nature. Apple wants to invest in "working" forests, in keeping with its history of practical environmentalism.

Time Spent

The 30-year-old magazine rack had fallen apart. Its plastic screws and inserts (bottom of first photo) had loosened and cracked, leaving the hardwood pieces in a disconnected jumble.

We looked online for a new one. New racks don't cost much--$20 to $50--and are made of steel wire or plastic. But there were no hardwood racks for $100 or less. (Why not spend more? Who reads magazines?)

A trip to the Home Depot fastener section didn't turn up parts that fit, so I ordered inserts, washers, and bolts (second photo) that cost a total of $31 from Amazon.

My woodworking acquaintances will sneer at the trouble in putting the pieces together.

The metal inserts wouldn't stay in the holes where the old plastic inserts were seated.

First I tried merely pushing them, but they moved with the slightest turn of the screw. Next I set the inserts with Elmer's Glue, basically the same product we used in shop class nearly (cough) 60 years ago; no luck, they still wouldn't hold after two days of drying.

Finally, I drilled the holes a quarter-inch deeper, and after some hard pushing and turning achieved success (bottom photo).

Why am I recounting this tale of a trifling repair?

A rational person might argue that there is no justification for spending $31 in materials and laboring six hours over four days to produce a used item whose market value was, say, $25.

On the other hand, monetary cost-benefit analysis is the wrong perspective from which to view activities that give one pleasure. For example some people happily garden or look after their children while others are only too glad to pay someone else to assume these "burdens."

I am at an age where I should more carefully evaluate how I spend my time.

Fixing broken magazine racks wasn't on the list, yet the task did give me some pleasure after all, and I'm glad that I did it.

Do you ever wonder whether Warren Buffett does the dishes or whether Bill Gates changes a light bulb? It wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Chipper on Saturday

It's been at least ten days since the tree has lain at the corner. Early Saturday morning the neighborhood woke to the grinding of heavy machinery.

Your humble blogger immediately knew what it was. A wood chipper was taking care of business.

Even if one has never seen a chipper live in operation, it's a familiar sound; the machine has become a clichéd method of disposal in movies and TV crime dramas.

22 years ago in the movie Fargo.

Answer: Probably Not Enough for a Skyscraper

Bloomberg: "An architectural rendering of a 1,000-foot-tall wood skyscraper proposed for London."

Question: How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

The titular answer to the playful question is not so silly as it used to be.

The Economist: The case for wooden skyscrapers is not barking. Wood is lightweight:

There would also be less construction traffic. [Cambridge professor Martin] Ramage calculates that for every lorry delivering timber for a wooden building, five lorries would be needed to deliver concrete and steel.

Objection #1: Is wood strong enough?

there have been big advances in “engineered” wood, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) made from layers of timber sections glued together with their grains at right angles to one another.

Objection #2: what about fire?

The concrete covering the floor was mainly for sound insulation, but it helps to deal with the second worry: fire. The concrete adds a layer of fire protection between floors....But with other fire-resistant layers and modern sprinkler systems, tall wooden buildings can exceed existing fire standards, reckons Benton Johnson, a project leader with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.

Wood, with a little help from concrete, is strong, light, and fire-resistant.

It all looks good on paper, but the big bad wolf has yet to be heard from.