Back in 1879, scientist William Beal buried bottles with seeds in them to understand how long seeds can last. Recently, researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) dug up one of these bottles and found that some seeds were still growing.&nbsp;

Beal buried 20 bottles with over a thousand seeds each, and the goal was to help farmers deal with weeds. The bottles were buried in a way that water wouldn't collect in them. Originally, they planned to dig up a bottle every five years, but now they do it every 20 years.

Even though the experiment is really old, some seeds from the latest bottle were still able to grow. This is amazing because it shows that very old seeds can still sprout and become plants. Plant biologist Frank Telewski said he was surprised that something so old could still grow.

"The biggest surprise to me is that the seeds germinated again,"&nbsp;says&nbsp;plant biologist Frank Telewski, from MSU. "It's amazing that something so old can still grow."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/in-major-breakthrough-scientists-discover-kill-switch-that-can-kill-cancer-658330">Also read |&nbsp;In major breakthrough, scientists discover ‘kill switch' that can kill cancer</a>

<h2>Genetic testing</h2>

Researchers at MSU used new technology to look at the genes of the plants grown from these old seeds. This is the first time they've done this, and it helped them confirm that these plants are the same as the ones Beal described.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/cat-parasite-could-be-responsible-for-fragility-in-older-adults-says-study-658305">Also read |&nbsp;Cat parasite could be responsible for fragility in some older adults, says study</a>

There are still four bottles left to be dug up, and they plan to keep doing this until the year 2100. The bottles are kept in a secret place so that no one else can open them. This helps make sure that the research is accurate and not changed by anyone, according to Science Alert.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

Back in 1879, scientist William Beal buried bottles with seeds in them to understand how long seeds can last. Recently, researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) dug up one of these bottles and found that some seeds were still growing.

Back in 1879, scientist William Beal buried bottles with seeds in them to understand how long seeds can last. Recently, researchers from Michigan State University (MSU) dug up one of these bottles and found that some seeds were still growing. Beal buried 20 bottles with over a thousand seeds each, and the goal was to help farmers deal with weeds. The bottles were buried in a way that water wouldn't collect in them. Originally, they planned to dig up a bottle every five years, but now they do it every 20 years. Even though the experiment is really old, some seeds from the latest bottle were still able to grow. This is amazing because it shows that very old seeds can still sprout and become plants. Plant biologist Frank Telewski said he was surprised that something so old could still grow. "The biggest surprise to me is that the seeds germinated again," says plant biologist Frank Telewski, from MSU. "It's amazing that something so old can still grow." Also read | In major breakthrough, scientists discover ‘kill switch' that can kill cancer Genetic testing Researchers at MSU used new technology to look at the genes of the plants grown from these old seeds. This is the first time they've done this, and it helped them confirm that these plants are the same as the ones Beal described. Also read | Cat parasite could be responsible for fragility in some older adults, says study There are still four bottles left to be dug up, and they plan to keep doing this until the year 2100. The bottles are kept in a secret place so that no one else can open them. This helps make sure that the research is accurate and not changed by anyone, according to Science Alert. (With inputs from agencies)

Scientists dig out seeds buried in a bottle in 1879, and this is what they found

On a remote and windswept island some 700km south of New Zealand, grows the world's loneliest tree. Green, bushy, large — as trees go, it's pretty unremarkable.&nbsp;

Sitting in the middle of the permanently uninhabited subantarctic Campbell Island, the&nbsp;nine-metre-tall Sitka spruce is 250 kilometres away from its closest companion. In fact, it is the only tree on the island.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;100-year-old pine has been recognised by the Guinness World Records as the&nbsp;"most remote tree in the world".&nbsp;However, technically, this lonely&nbsp;tree should not be here.

Its very existence is now helping to advance groundbreaking climate change research.

Online interest in the world's loneliest tree and its survival tale is nothing new.

As reported by the Guardian, Jocelyn Turnbull, a climate scientist, saw the tree for a different reason.

Dr. Turnbull, who is the head of radiocarbon science at GNS Science New Zealand, is in charge of a significant study that is a component of the Antarctic Science Platform, a government-funded study that aims to increase knowledge of the effects of Antarctica on the Earth's system.

In order to comprehend the Southern Ocean's function as a carbon sink, Dr. Turnbull and her colleagues, specialists in radiocarbon measurement, are looking into the source of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-africas-hottest-oasis-disease-and-drought-threaten-famed-date-palms-513237">In Africa's hottest oasis, disease and drought threaten famed date palms</a>

Dr. Turnbull claimed that due to the westerly winds and absence of land to slow the wind down, the Southern Ocean is the most crucial location to study the exchange of carbon dioxide.

"That windiness drives this huge overturning of the water, brings up deep water to the surface and mixes, which allows the ocean to take up more carbon than&nbsp;other areas in the ocean that aren't as dynamic," she said.&nbsp;

So,&nbsp;where does the world's loneliest tree come in?&nbsp;

Dr. Turnbull must weigh past and present data of radiocarbon and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/something-is-making-oxygen-on-mars-512195">carbon dioxide</a> in the atmosphere surrounding the Southern Ocean in order to draw a judgement.

"We did not collect samples in the Southern Ocean 30 years ago,&nbsp;and you can't go back and sample the air that was there 30 years because it's not there anymore," she explains.&nbsp;

As it turns out, tree rings can give you this record.&nbsp;

"Every year, you have a ring you can distinguish and you can slice those rings out and measure the radiocarbon in them, and then we can get this story back in time of what's been happening with how the Southern Ocean has been changing," Dr. Turnbull says.

Why this tree?&nbsp;

To avoid running out of items to measure, Dr. Turnbull and her colleagues needed to travel as far into the Southern Ocean as they could. There isn't a lot of land, you can see by looking at a map of the planet, she added.

It was the lowest the team could travel to where there was a living tree—at 52 degrees south latitude.

The team decided to take a chance on Campbell Island and this lone tree because the options were slim.

A tale&nbsp;of survival&nbsp;

The bright star of Dr. Turnbull is thought to have been planted on the isolated island in or around 1907 by Lord Ranfurly, the New Zealand governor general at the time.

Many people think that the tree has survived for so long because the island is so nearly "untouched."

"You are literally tripping over penguins, you have albatrosses&nbsp;flying up to have a look at you. Compared to anything else you can think of, they are untouched," Dr. Turnbull says.

The Tree of Ténéré formerly held the distinction of being named the world's loneliest tree, before the Sitka spruce.

This lone acacia served as a crucial navigational landmark and a reminder of perseverance in the face of a challenging environment. It was the only tree for 400 kilometres in the Sahara Desert of Niger.

However, a Libyan truck driver struck the tree in 1973 while travelling along an old caravan route.

The dead tree was displayed in the National Museum of Niger.

Why is the tree lonely?

The future of the spruce is a topic of intense controversy among botanists and scientists, but Dr. Turnbull feels that its existence has benefitted individuals far beyond her studies by giving company to those who are most alone.

"There's been a princess who fled from Scotland, whalers, seafarers, research exhibitions and people stranded," Dr.Turnbull explains.&nbsp;

"I've even heard that when people were living there on research exhibitions, supposedly they would go and take the top out of this tree and use it for a Christmas tree."

Also WATCH |&nbsp;WION Climate Tracker | India's silicon valley turns into lake; flooded roads leave citizens adrift

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-climate-tracker-indias-silicon-valley-turns-into-lake-flooded-roads-leave-citizens-adrift-513188/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

On a remote and windswept island some 700km south of New Zealand, grows the world's loneliest tree. Green, bushy, large — as trees go, it's pretty unremarkable. Sitting in the middle of the permanently uninhabited subantarctic Campbell Island, the nine-metre-tall Sitka spruce is 250 kilometres away from its closest companion.

On a remote and windswept island some 700km south of New Zealand, grows the world's loneliest tree. Green, bushy, large — as trees go, it's pretty unremarkable. Sitting in the middle of the permanently uninhabited subantarctic Campbell Island, the nine-metre-tall Sitka spruce is 250 kilometres away from its closest companion. In fact, it is the only tree on the island. The 100-year-old pine has been recognised by the Guinness World Records as the "most remote tree in the world". However, technically, this lonely tree should not be here. Its very existence is now helping to advance groundbreaking climate change research. Online interest in the world's loneliest tree and its survival tale is nothing new. As reported by the Guardian, Jocelyn Turnbull, a climate scientist, saw the tree for a different reason. Dr. Turnbull, who is the head of radiocarbon science at GNS Science New Zealand, is in charge of a significant study that is a component of the Antarctic Science Platform, a government-funded study that aims to increase knowledge of the effects of Antarctica on the Earth's system. In order to comprehend the Southern Ocean's function as a carbon sink, Dr. Turnbull and her colleagues, specialists in radiocarbon measurement, are looking into the source of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Also read | In Africa's hottest oasis, disease and drought threaten famed date palms Dr. Turnbull claimed that due to the westerly winds and absence of land to slow the wind down, the Southern Ocean is the most crucial location to study the exchange of carbon dioxide. "That windiness drives this huge overturning of the water, brings up deep water to the surface and mixes, which allows the ocean to take up more carbon than other areas in the ocean that aren't as dynamic," she said. So, where does the world's loneliest tree come in? Dr. Turnbull must weigh past and present data of radiocarbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surrounding the Southern Ocean in order to draw a judgement. "We did not collect samples in the Southern Ocean 30 years ago, and you can't go back and sample the air that was there 30 years because it's not there anymore," she explains. As it turns out, tree rings can give you this record. "Every year, you have a ring you can distinguish and you can slice those rings out and measure the radiocarbon in them, and then we can get this story back in time of what's been happening with how the Southern Ocean has been changing," Dr. Turnbull says. Why this tree? To avoid running out of items to measure, Dr. Turnbull and her colleagues needed to travel as far into the Southern Ocean as they could. There isn't a lot of land, you can see by looking at a map of the planet, she added. It was the lowest the team could travel to where there was a living tree—at 52 degrees south latitude. The team decided to take a chance on Campbell Island and this lone tree because the options were slim. A tale of survival The bright star of Dr. Turnbull is thought to have been planted on the isolated island in or around 1907 by Lord Ranfurly, the New Zealand governor general at the time. Many people think that the tree has survived for so long because the island is so nearly "untouched." "You are literally tripping over penguins, you have albatrosses flying up to have a look at you. Compared to anything else you can think of, they are untouched," Dr. Turnbull says. The Tree of Ténéré formerly held the distinction of being named the world's loneliest tree, before the Sitka spruce. This lone acacia served as a crucial navigational landmark and a reminder of perseverance in the face of a challenging environment. It was the only tree for 400 kilometres in the Sahara Desert of Niger. However, a Libyan truck driver struck the tree in 1973 while travelling along an old caravan route. The dead tree was displayed in the National Museum of Niger. Why is the tree lonely? The future of the spruce is a topic of intense controversy among botanists and scientists, but Dr. Turnbull feels that its existence has benefitted individuals far beyond her studies by giving company to those who are most alone. "There's been a princess who fled from Scotland, whalers, seafarers, research exhibitions and people stranded," Dr.Turnbull explains. "I've even heard that when people were living there on research exhibitions, supposedly they would go and take the top out of this tree and use it for a Christmas tree." Also WATCH | WION Climate Tracker | India's silicon valley turns into lake; flooded roads leave citizens adrift

How the world's loneliest tree is aiding scientists in their work on climate change

Imagine you’re a pepper plant. You need water and nutrients. Luckily, you can grow roots that grab that stuff from the soil and pipe it back to you. So far, so good.

There’s just one problem. Your neighbor — also a pepper plant — needs the same things. There’s only so much to go around. What’s your move?

For years, researchers have looked into the tangled problem of root competition, coming up with diverse and sometimes conflicting findings about how plants strategically arrange their roots when the dirt gets crowded. A paper published this month in Science details a new model that appears to reconcile this confusion by accounting for the spatial distribution of roots along with their prevalence. In initial tests performed by the paper’s authors, real plants played by the rules the model laid out.

It takes energy and materials to grow and maintain a root. Ideally, a plant will get more resources out of its roots than it spends on their construction and upkeep. Plants can sense the concentration of water and nutrients in particular soil patches, and apportion roots accordingly, to maximize their yield.

For a solitary plant, this is simple enough. But when other plants are around, the calculus changes. Researchers have borrowed tools from game theory — a way to analyze and optimize decision making, used by everyone from financial analysts to actual gamers — to try to figure out exactly how.

One model, published in 2001, predicted that plants growing close together end up in a “tragedy of the commons,” with each individual in a shared space making more roots than a lone plant would, but also getting fewer rewards. Some real-world experiments matched this model, finding that plants with neighbors did create more root mass than those growing on their own.

But other studies have found the opposite: that competing plants invested less in roots. And others still found no appreciable difference.

“There was all this controversy,” said Ciro Cabal, a doctoral student in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University and the lead author of the new study.

Cabal wondered whether that model, and others like it, might be missing a component. They treated all roots the same, no matter their distance from the plant’s stem. But in reality, the farther a root grows from the plant, the more costly it is to produce and maintain.

So he and his co-authors built a new model to account for that. “We incorporated space,” he said. “And we found this new theory.”

In their model, a plant facing competition will underproduce those more expensive, wide-ranging roots that might otherwise overlap with a neighbor’s. But it will overproduce roots closer to home, effectively consolidating power and preventing any “I drink your milkshake” style plays.

Whether plants with neighbors over- or underproduce roots compared with solo plants depends on how far apart the two competing plants are, Cabal said. So those findings from previous studies that seemed to contradict each other are “all possible according to our model.”

Next, the researchers brought this hypothetical math down to earth. They planted sweet peppers in containers — some alone, and some in twos about four inches apart — and stained the roots of the rival peppers with dyes, to differentiate them. After a few months, they mapped out where and how densely each plant’s roots had grown, and found it matched the model. The paired peppers grew more roots that stayed close to home, and fewer that went farther away, compared with the peppers that had containers to themselves.

The new model “provides an excellent baseline prediction for how root systems might behave in the presence of neighbors,” and brings together hypotheses and findings that previously seemed contradictory, said Jochen Schenk, a professor of plant biology at California State University Fullerton who was not involved in the study.

But he cautions against overgeneralizing about its findings.

“I would not accept the claim that a single test with one plant species can tell us what plants will do in general,” he said.

Different species may respond to each other in different ways. Recent research also suggests that other life-forms, such as fungi and microbes, bear on how some plants interact underground.

Even Cabal did not expect that his model and experiment would correspond so neatly. While he expects real-world cases to challenge the particulars of the model, “I truly believe that the principle we present is true,” he said. Next, he plans to try his experiment in the wild, on a few species of Mediterranean shrub.

If this strategy does turn out to be widely used by plants, people could use it to incorporate more accurate estimates of plant biomass into climate models, Cabal said. And if it’s possible, breeding some of the competitiveness out of plants could also improve yields in agriculture. Farmers are often stymied by self-interested crops that put their energy into roots instead of fruits.

Cabal and his co-authors also modeled what he called a “cooperative solution” to the nutrient-sharing problem. In this scenario, “each plant is not being selfish — it’s not maximizing its own reward,” he said. Instead, the plants collectively position their roots to produce the most nutrient uptake for the least investment overall.

Alas, experimentally, “we didn’t find it in these plants,” he said.

For now, it’s every pepper for itself.

Imagine you’re a pepper plant. You need water and nutrients. Luckily, you can grow roots that grab that stuff from the soil and pipe it back to you. So far, so good.

Imagine you’re a pepper plant. You need water and nutrients. Luckily, you can grow roots that grab that stuff from the soil and pipe it back to you. So far, so good. There’s just one problem. Your neighbor — also a pepper plant — needs the same things. There’s only so much to go around. What’s your move? For years, researchers have looked into the tangled problem of root competition, coming up with diverse and sometimes conflicting findings about how plants strategically arrange their roots when the dirt gets crowded. A paper published this month in Science details a new model that appears to reconcile this confusion by accounting for the spatial distribution of roots along with their prevalence. In initial tests performed by the paper’s authors, real plants played by the rules the model laid out. It takes energy and materials to grow and maintain a root. Ideally, a plant will get more resources out of its roots than it spends on their construction and upkeep. Plants can sense the concentration of water and nutrients in particular soil patches, and apportion roots accordingly, to maximize their yield. For a solitary plant, this is simple enough. But when other plants are around, the calculus changes. Researchers have borrowed tools from game theory — a way to analyze and optimize decision making, used by everyone from financial analysts to actual gamers — to try to figure out exactly how. One model, published in 2001, predicted that plants growing close together end up in a “tragedy of the commons,” with each individual in a shared space making more roots than a lone plant would, but also getting fewer rewards. Some real-world experiments matched this model, finding that plants with neighbors did create more root mass than those growing on their own. But other studies have found the opposite: that competing plants invested less in roots. And others still found no appreciable difference. “There was all this controversy,” said Ciro Cabal, a doctoral student in ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University and the lead author of the new study. Cabal wondered whether that model, and others like it, might be missing a component. They treated all roots the same, no matter their distance from the plant’s stem. But in reality, the farther a root grows from the plant, the more costly it is to produce and maintain. So he and his co-authors built a new model to account for that. “We incorporated space,” he said. “And we found this new theory.” In their model, a plant facing competition will underproduce those more expensive, wide-ranging roots that might otherwise overlap with a neighbor’s. But it will overproduce roots closer to home, effectively consolidating power and preventing any “I drink your milkshake” style plays. Whether plants with neighbors over- or underproduce roots compared with solo plants depends on how far apart the two competing plants are, Cabal said. So those findings from previous studies that seemed to contradict each other are “all possible according to our model.” Next, the researchers brought this hypothetical math down to earth. They planted sweet peppers in containers — some alone, and some in twos about four inches apart — and stained the roots of the rival peppers with dyes, to differentiate them. After a few months, they mapped out where and how densely each plant’s roots had grown, and found it matched the model. The paired peppers grew more roots that stayed close to home, and fewer that went farther away, compared with the peppers that had containers to themselves. The new model “provides an excellent baseline prediction for how root systems might behave in the presence of neighbors,” and brings together hypotheses and findings that previously seemed contradictory, said Jochen Schenk, a professor of plant biology at California State University Fullerton who was not involved in the study. But he cautions against overgeneralizing about its findings. “I would not accept the claim that a single test with one plant species can tell us what plants will do in general,” he said. Different species may respond to each other in different ways. Recent research also suggests that other life-forms, such as fungi and microbes, bear on how some plants interact underground. Even Cabal did not expect that his model and experiment would correspond so neatly. While he expects real-world cases to challenge the particulars of the model, “I truly believe that the principle we present is true,” he said. Next, he plans to try his experiment in the wild, on a few species of Mediterranean shrub. If this strategy does turn out to be widely used by plants, people could use it to incorporate more accurate estimates of plant biomass into climate models, Cabal said. And if it’s possible, breeding some of the competitiveness out of plants could also improve yields in agriculture. Farmers are often stymied by self-interested crops that put their energy into roots instead of fruits. Cabal and his co-authors also modeled what he called a “cooperative solution” to the nutrient-sharing problem. In this scenario, “each plant is not being selfish — it’s not maximizing its own reward,” he said. Instead, the plants collectively position their roots to produce the most nutrient uptake for the least investment overall. Alas, experimentally, “we didn’t find it in these plants,” he said. For now, it’s every pepper for itself.

How selfish are plants? Let’s do some root analysis

botany

Botany, News on Botany, stories on Botany, articles on Botany, Botany stories at Wion, Botany news, Botany latest news