The BBC reports that the Earth has approximately 3×1012 trees. This is significantly larger than the previous estimate of 4×1011 trees.
The BBC also reports that some trees have particular resistance to wildfires:
More than 20,000 hectares of forest were charred. But in the middle of the devastation, a group of cypresses was still standing tall and green.
When a fire swept through an experimental plot in Andilla, in the Spanish province of Valencia in 2012, it gave researchers the perfect opportunity. The plot, which was part of CypFire, a project financed by the European Union, was established during the 1980s to test the resistance of more than 50 varieties of Mediterranean cypress to a pathogenic fungus. After the fire event of 2012, it also provided further anecdotal evidence of the peculiar resilience of the species in the face of fire. Botanist Bernabé Moya and his brother, environmental engineer José Moya, both from the department of monumental trees in Valencia, had been involved in the project for several years.
"On our way to what we knew would be a Dante-esque scene during that tragic summer, we felt deep sadness at the thought of losing a plot of such value to the conservation of biodiversity," Bernabé Moya told BBC Mundo.
"But we had hope that perhaps some of the cypresses had survived."
"When we got there we saw that all the common oaks, holm oaks, pines and junipers had completely burnt. But only 1.27% of the Mediterranean cypresses had ignited."
Further research reveals that cypress trees are wetter than other trees but this characteristic was missed due to lab research using dry samples. Cypress trees may or may not be suitable as natural, bio-diverse, fire breaks.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 09 2015, @09:28AM
Cypress trees may or may not be suitable as natural, bio-diverse, fire breaks.
Good. Glad we got that cleared up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @09:52AM
It depends how wet they get when dry humped.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondoctor on Wednesday September 09 2015, @09:54AM
Makes it hard to take the new number seriously...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 09 2015, @12:09PM
No, it makes the old number hard to take seriously, which is the point of new numbers.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @02:25PM
To be fair many species of trees can be genetically identical throughout huge forest-sized groves. What appears to be a forest of thousands might just be one actual tree spreading new shoots via root structure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @09:59PM
A tree whose branches reach toward the ground and root to for a new trunk:
Banyan tree [panoramio.com]
Given enough time, it takes over an area.
.
...and when I think "Cypress", I typically think "Cypress swamp" with each tree having a buttressed trunk [treeseedonline.com] which is necessary because its root are in really wet soil.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Interesting) by sparky on Wednesday September 09 2015, @03:26PM
The number of trees on Earth has almost halved since civilisation began [sciencealert.com]
The hubris of claiming 'settled science' [americanthinker.com]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday September 09 2015, @04:25PM
I find it astounding that we have a better estimate of the stars in the galaxy and the mass in the known universe than the trees on our planet or the fauna in our oceans. Presumably, it is easily to point telescopes than do a global survey. Regardless, we have some embarrassing gaps in our local knowledge.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @09:56AM
It's not just that, it is that particularly on the cosmological scale, scientists assume that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. This means that physicists assume that you can point a telescope at a tiny patch of the universe, count the number of galaxies there, and then extrapolate to the entire universe. This assumption is backed up by some data (e.g. look at many tiny patches at different angles).
On the earth, such an assumption is patently not true, for example due to differential heating of the earth's surface by the sun, different geologies, land/sea boundaries and so forth. So it is much harder to make an estimate like what you want. Note that in terms of money invested, huge amounts of money has been invested in mapping the earth (it has obvious military and civilian uses). For example, the satellite data used in the article requires use of satellite imagery, which is the end point of maybe 50 years of R&D into satellite imagery and a satellite constellation worth however many 100 million $. The problem is that they needed 400,000 forest plots (quote from article) which is a huge number and a huge investment of effort...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @03:43AM
Off by a factor of 10 or no, its big enough that there's no reason to stop deforestation, especially not when lumber is worth money.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Wednesday September 09 2015, @11:32AM
Sycamore and willow are like cypress trees, they grow like crazy in swampy conditions - and it's wood I avoid cutting in winter because it's useless. They're just now figuring out doesn't burn well? What a waste of research money.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday September 09 2015, @03:26PM
Well, one has to admit that Valencia is quite warm and relatively dry [wmo.int] compared to swamps, but I agree that this result - if it is the only one [1]- is probably not worth the research money.
[1] for those curious, here's the paper [ipp.cnr.it] (scroll down for english version).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @10:11PM
it's wood I avoid cutting in winter because it's useless
If you're thinking about a conventional carpentry shop, yeah.
Where I grew up, we had Weeping Willows around the creeks.
The skinny, flexible branches are useful to weave e.g. laundry baskets.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09 2015, @12:31PM
That lady was a bad driver.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday September 09 2015, @09:12PM
What's so special about fire-proof trees?
I remember being on a tour of various places around the Mediterranean, including a volcanic island where a particular type of tree was basically immune to lava flows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_canariensis [wikipedia.org]
It's called evolution - adapt or die out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @03:49AM
I think slogans like this might be part of why there's so much misconception about evolution, why creationists fail to understand it even as the work of their god. Lines like this give the impression that evolution is an isolated event that can occur at any time, or by choice, when it reality its a long series of events that happen over tens or hundreds of generations.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday September 10 2015, @05:32AM
including a volcanic island where a particular type of tree was basically immune to lava flows.
I don't think you remember things quite right. You see, lava flow is molten rock. Trees that touch it, burn. And if they didn't, they'd get snapped in half.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday September 10 2015, @06:50AM
Except these trees. That don't burn. They're also round trees, and the rock flows round them. They char and lose their tops and then immediately regrow, such that you see trees in the middle of cooled lava flows that NOTHING else survived, not a weed, not another tree, nothing.
Google it. Or visit there. It's one of the things they show you every time. I'm not saying they just sit there and stay completely unchanged, but - as a species - they are able to survive lava flows that nothing else can.
(Score: 1) by Some call me Tim on Wednesday September 09 2015, @11:56PM
After the apocalypse we'll still be able to make Gin! The tonic might be a problem, but we'll deal with that later.
Questioning science is how you do science!