Global Count Estimates Earth Has 73,000 Tree Species, 14% More Than Reported (theguardian.com) 14
There are an estimated 73,300 species of tree on Earth, 9,000 of which have yet to be discovered, according to a global count of tree species by thousands of researchers who used second world war codebreaking techniques created at Bletchley Park to evaluate the number of unknown species. From a report: Researchers working on the ground in 90 countries collected information on 38 million trees, sometimes walking for days and camping in remote places to reach them. The study found there are about 14% more tree species than previously reported and that a third of undiscovered tree species are rare, meaning they could be vulnerable to extinction by human-driven changes in land use and the climate crisis.
"It is a massive effort for the whole world to document our forests," said Jingjing Liang, a lead author of the paper and professor of quantitative forest ecology at Purdue University in Indiana, US. "Counting the number of tree species worldwide is like a puzzle with pieces spreading all over the world. We solved it together as a team, each sharing our own piece." Despite being among the largest and most widespread organisms, there are still thousands of trees to be discovered, with 40% of unknown species believed to be in South America, according to the paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Some of these undocumented species would probably have been known to indigenous communities but some, in the most inaccessible regions, may have never been found before.
"It is a massive effort for the whole world to document our forests," said Jingjing Liang, a lead author of the paper and professor of quantitative forest ecology at Purdue University in Indiana, US. "Counting the number of tree species worldwide is like a puzzle with pieces spreading all over the world. We solved it together as a team, each sharing our own piece." Despite being among the largest and most widespread organisms, there are still thousands of trees to be discovered, with 40% of unknown species believed to be in South America, according to the paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Some of these undocumented species would probably have been known to indigenous communities but some, in the most inaccessible regions, may have never been found before.
Neat. Another scare-monger article. (Score:1)
The study found there are about 14% more tree species than previously reported and that a third of undiscovered tree species are rare, meaning they could be vulnerable to extinction by human-driven changes in land use and the climate crisis.
So, now we're just flat out making up numbers of things that humanity is killing by existing? How about we concentrate on the things we already know we're doing? I mean, I'm not against continued exploration and discovery. And maybe these numbers will end up panning out. But at the moment it's a somewhat more educated guess as to how many more species may exist, with another sorta/kinda educated guess as to how many of those may be rare, then a flat-out ass-pull saying those that are rare (made up numbe
Re: (Score:3)
So, now we're just flat out making up numbers of things that humanity is killing by existing?
Not even close. These guys are using well-proven statistical methods (Good-Turing frequency estimation, specifically) to sample the existing population, observing how often they find each species, and using some pretty basic math to project the likelihood of observing new species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Believe it or not, you can learn a lot about a population by collecting a small sample - this is the basis for many data collection and engineering methods. "Some guy thinks there are 14k undiscove
Re: (Score:2)
I've studied statistics for years and while I find the basic study fascinating, I do not condone tagging "humans are killing this" to every story as a positive trend even though I think there's plenty we are getting wrong that should be addressed. If you find that a political stance, that's a you problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You're applying a value judgement to this shit all on your own. The concept that there are many undiscovered species isn't new... do you really think we've already discovered all there is to discover? Using basic math to estimate exactly what that number might be should also be uncontroversial, and the value of that ought to be quite obvious to anybody who thinks about it for a moment.
A lot of people right now seem to be committed to magical thinking - if we don't know about a problem, then it can't hurt us
Re: (Score:2)
You're totally misrepresenting what I said as if I'm somebody in utter denial about what destruction we're causing. I just happen to think that data such as this can be presented without instantly tagging "we're killing things we don't know exist" onto it. That's all I said. There's statistical data, and then there's scaremongering on third-level statistical data that we haven't verified. How is it anti-science to say maybe we should analyze it a bit more before going straight to the favorite hot-button
Re: (Score:2)
You're totally misrepresenting what I said as if I'm somebody in utter denial about what destruction we're causing. I just happen to think that data such as this can be presented without instantly tagging "we're killing things we don't know exist" onto it. That's all I said.
You said that the authors are "flat out making up numbers of things" - which isn't at all true, and misrepresents the statistically rigorous methods used in this study. Your characterization is what I object to - the statistics are sound, and so there's no reason to disbelieve the conclusions of the study.
Is it this line you are complaining about? "... a third of undiscovered tree species are rare, meaning they could be vulnerable to extinction by human-driven changes in land use and the climate crisis".
If
Re: (Score:2)
My overall objection is the idea that statistics = 100% truth. That type of blind-faith belief being touted as scientifically 100% truth is just baffling among people that consider themselves educated. Statistics, no matter how rigorously examined, are still just statistics.
Clearly, we won't be seeing eye-to-eye on this one. I'm sure we'll both walk away from the conversation feeling like we've flung ourselves at idiocy being held up as intelligence. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
My overall objection is the idea that statistics = 100% truth. That type of blind-faith belief being touted as scientifically 100% truth is just baffling among people that consider themselves educated.
Strawman argument my friend - nobody is making the claim that you're arguing against. You'll note that scientific studies (including this one) never purport to have 100% truth. Responsible scientists (like these guys) add qualifiers to the extent that most laymen get annoyed by it. "Study suggests" that things "could be vulnerable" at a "x% confidence interval" and +- some amount of uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your main objection to the idea of applying the Good-Turing frequency formula to species?
Re: (Score:2)
"the actual quantifiable", I presume you mean things that are actually counted. So you goes to the doctor:
You: Doctor, Doctor, I cannot stop dancing, what's wrong?
Doctor: Well, most of these cases involve the Watusi Disease. We have pills here that should clear it up, they work in 95% of the cases.
You: Doctor, Doctor, I cannot stop dancing, what's wrong? Don't give me anything that is not quantifiable.
Doctor: Please see the receptionist on the way out. She'll quantify your bill in very certain terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you use a larger number species to describe the continuum of genetic diversity out there, you will automatically find more threatened species. Which is kind of the point: to get a more precise picture of what is going on out there, including what we're losing.
Let me give you an example of how this works. I used to lead tree identification walks, and one of the things that surprised me is how many people think any coniferous tree is a "pine tree"; firs, spruces, hemlocks, cedars -- they're all "pi
Re: (Score:2)
I think that may be one to three levels too far removed from reality to be truly concerning on its own. I'm slightly more concerned by the actual quantifiable and well studied things that we are definitely impacting than I am by imaginary numbers calculated from other imaginary numbers.
Guess what, if you take care of those "actual quantifiable and well studied things" you will most likely also take care of the unquantifiable things talked about here. So for you taking care of the quantifiable is a good thing and for others it may be more important to take into account the unquantifiable. Either way both of you benefit from each of you taking care of your own concerns (since there inevitably be cross benefits between the two groups).
Fun tree fact (Score:5, Interesting)
When you look at a tree, the vast majority of of what you look at is dead, with what's living being just thin layers and protrusions at the surface - akin to corals growing atop the skeletons of past coral growth.
The most active living tissue around mature lignified stems and branches is the cambium growth layer. As it divides, cells produced going inwards mature into xylem (water conduction - or tracheids in more primitive trees), while those produced outwards develop into phloem (sugar conduction).
Xylem cells have only one purpose, which is to form their desired (well reinforced) shape and then die. These dead cellular skeletons make up the "wood" of the tree. The sapwood is active and conducting (via capillary action, fully passive), while the heartwood isn't only dead, but no longer in use - the tree uses it as a dumping ground for waste products (hence the different colour).
Phloem cells - the inner bark - are alive, but only just. They have only a handful of organelles, clustered around their edges (and no nucleus); they're basically just puppets for the minuscule, interconnected companion cells that maintain them.
There's an extra living growth layer as well, the cork cambium, but its only job is to make cells that grow and then, again, immediately die (the outer bark).
All and all, it's this thin sheath of "alive and barely alive" wrapped around a giant skeleton.
And to think... (Score:2)