Recent Study of Climate Change Impacts on Coast Redwood Reveals Unexpected Results
Press release from Cal Poly Humboldt:
Although redwoods occupy only a small land area, they are globally
renowned for their great size, longevity, and grandeur. [Photo courtesy of Marie Antoine]Scientists from Cal Poly Humboldt conducted a rangewide analysis of coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) to examine growth trends and understand how these trees are responding to recent environmental changes. They found that redwoods have varying sensitivity to drought, and that rising temperatures may affect tree performance in unexpected ways—results that are both concerning and hopeful.
The study, published in Forest Ecology and Management, was led by Cal Poly Humboldt Forestry Professor Stephen C. Sillett, the Kenneth L. Fisher Chair in Redwood Forest Ecology. Sillett’s team was funded by the Save the Redwoods League through their ongoing Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative (RCCI). This phase of RCCI was designed to investigate how redwoods across their range are responding to the changing climate, and what these responses mean for long-term carbon sequestration and biodiversity.
Sillett and team visited 45 locations spanning the redwood range from Monterey County in central California to Curry County in southern Oregon. They climbed 235 trees, measuring each one from base to top and core-sampling trunks at regular height intervals. They analyzed 1.2 million tree rings, which were crossdated by Cal Poly Humboldt dendrochronologist Allyson Carroll. Using tree ring data and intensive measurements, the researchers reconstructed tree size back through time and modeled tree performance as functions of landscape position and climate.
Coastal fog helps alleviate drought stress. Nighttime fog, in particular, is one
of the best predictors of redwood growth efficiency. [Photo courtesy of Steve Sillett]They found that redwoods in the north are less drought-sensitive than those in the south, but drought sensitivity is increasing across the range. Even without changes in precipitation, the redwood range is drying due to warming. The drying power of air increases exponentially with temperature, and this has important consequences for trees.
While extreme daytime temperatures can lead to death of treetops, another temperature effect inhibits tree radial growth. Nighttime temperatures are becoming unusually warm. Warmer, drier nights may reduce growth but increase tree decay resistance as excess sugars are used to produce heartwood fungicide instead of wood. The name “redwood” comes from the color of the decay-resistant chemicals in the central heartwood of a tree. The more fungicide produced, the more durable the heartwood.
While this could be a silver lining to climate change, it’s more complicated because all redwoods aren’t equal. Larger and older redwoods produce more and better heartwood. Heartwood production and fungicide content are higher in primary than secondary forests throughout the range. This means secondary forests are less effective than primary forests at long-term carbon sequestration. Only ~5% of primary redwood forests remain, and mature secondary forests are even scarcer due to repeated logging.
Managing redwoods as short-rotation crops squanders the potential of a species that can live for two millennia. Long-term carbon sequestration is one issue, and biodiversity is another. These issues are interconnected because decay-resistant heartwood creates durable habitats for canopy biodiversity.
Tree structural complexity promotes biodiversity—the largest and oldest trees host the bulk of arboreal life in a given forest, in addition to being carbon-sequestration champions. These “Elder Trees” are now rare on the landscape. However, designating Potential Elder Trees (PETs) can literally grow hope for the future.
With this approach, some of the most robust trees in a secondary forest are chosen to become part of the long-term inventory. Future land management promotes the health and vigor of Potential Elder Trees, including selective logging of crowding neighbor trees. This means production of timber and other values such as long-term carbon sequestration and biodiversity provisioning aren’t mutually exclusive in regenerating forests.
“With thick fire-resistant bark and an amazing capacity for clonal reproduction, few tree species are so well equipped to persist in an uncertain future,” the authors write. “Our actions now determine the quality of forests to be enjoyed by future generations.”


Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
I’ve planted hundreds of redwoods over the years here in Humboldt and still counting.
Thank you Joe. I hope you can plant many more over the coming years.
I intend to.
in that white ford? 🙂
i used to own that white ford. it went to baja and lived another 12 years camped on a point break.
Where’s the best place to get seedlings? The lumber companies used to hand them out at almost every community event back in the day, but those times are long gone.
Duh!
Carbon sequestration of ‘redwood forests’ is absolutely NOTHING compared to the excess CO2 produced by human population. Government should be investing in passing out birth control pills… worldwide.
Redwood forests is all short-term capture anyway, sooner or later they fall down and release the carbon when they decompose. Yes, even an old growth redwood… maybe 500-800 years old is really short term.
‘Carbon sequestration’ all about short term capturing $money$. Follow the money.
For anyone who’s interested in longer term climate changes…
read about Milankovitch cycles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Then California needs to stop polluting the rest of the world’s air:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/wildfires-are-erasing-californias-climate-gains-research-shows
Rake yer damned land like President Donald J Trump told you to do!
“Government should be investing in passing out birth control pills… worldwide.”
When people’s perception of future events becomes so certain that they’re willing to decimate the population, something has gone wrong. Science communicators and media need to come out and talk these radical activists off the ledge before they go on climate crusades.
Aren’t you glad your parent’s generation didn’t fall for birth control propaganda?
Wish they had, though i wouldn’t call it “falling for propaganda” so much as heeding their own common sense.
You wish your parents had the common sense to not reproduce?
Yikes. Science communication has failed us
This study illustrates how lucky we are to have Humboldt Cal Poly in our backyard. And, of course, trees deserve our responsible management and appreciation.
How many more virgin trees are they going to drill into to report on something that’s already known?
My thoughts also. I’m trusting Sillett and his team to do no harm.
6
But sometimes we miss the forest because of the trees. I question some of the assumptions. That if global warming is real, that it is uniform across the landscape. Certainly some regions might not warm. And the biggie: temperature is not uniform across the region.
“Nighttime temperatures are becoming unusually warm. ”
But how does this play out where the redwoods are? Temperature inversion much? Drive through the redwoods over to Honeydew one early fall morning. Down in lower elevations it will be chilly, maybe 50°(I observed a 38° low in August 2021) At about 1500 ft el., Where the redwoods transition to fir and tan oak anyway, the temps will shoot up about 15°. I’m curious where and how nighttime temperature observations are taken: in Arcata? At Bull Creek? on top of Grasshopper peak? If temps are higher above the inversion, does that mean that the air pulled in from the ocean, or slipping down the creek drainages is warmer too?
I think the common denominator here is “it depends”.
More man caused climate change scare mongering. Redwoods are going nowhere. Their range is artificially increasing with redwood now planted in Oregon, Washington, Montana, British Columbia, France, Hawaii, French Polynesia., as well as many other places. The ice age reduced their natural range to what it is currently. Redwoods do just fine in droughts and dry climates, ie; Eastern most redwoods in Napa County in an oven like environment. It’s all about the microclimate because those trees are growing on benches in the rain shadow of mountains often near watercourses. In Kauai, they are growing in Kokee on the dry side of the island. They are just as big and it looks exactly like the redwood forests here.
“More man caused climate change scare mongering.”
Yup. The same idiots will tell you Polar Bears are going extinct even though their population has MORE than quadrupled since the 70’s. In the same breath they push us towards WW3 with Russia Russia Russia. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Moratoriums on hunting polar bears have helped preserve their population, but their future does not look too rosy.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/polar-bear-population-thriving-population-rising-claim-misleading-misrepresents-data/536-0eb6146f-fb8c-437a-a97c-59625228187a
Whiteman explained that polar bears are highly specialized for life on sea ice.
Scientists can see there has been greater and greater Arctic sea ice melt over the past couple of decades, and so they’re confident that continued melt will mean fewer and fewer polar bears.
Over a million species of plants and animals are in danger of extinction, almost all due to human impacts. The ostriches are doing well, though.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909100244.htm
Yes, moratoriums on hunting helped bring their numbers back up; cool.
“they’re confident that continued melt will mean fewer and fewer polar bears.”
Yet their numbers keep growing. They have no idea if the ice caps will continue to melt or how much of it is attributable to man. NONE! And they’ve been warning for years about the extinction of polar bears, conveniently ignoring that the earth has been free of ice for the vast majority of its existence and that ice levels have ebbed and flowed drastically, even in the last 100 years. These douchebags have NO idea why. Yet, you believe them.
“Over a million species of plants and animals are in danger of extinction, almost all due to human impacts.”
Over 99% of species that ever roamed the earth ARE GONE, long before the combustion engine. Explain that! So, to say it’s “almost all due to human impacts” is complete and utter bullshit. This is why liberalism is a mental disorder, endlessly parroting obvious bullshit and begging for more enslavement from your benevolent government masters! Take the red pill!
Easy there Hot Rod!
We wouldn’t be where we’re at as a species if it weren’t for the awesome compact power potential of liquid petroleum fuel. I wouldn’t take the anthropogenic climate change thing too personally! I love me a gallon of fuel, but ya know, she don’t love me back.
Is your frustration based on the fact that you aren’t convincing anybody? You’re points are a little too salty with “douchebags”, and your observation: “…mental disorder, endlessly parroting obvious bullshit and begging for more enslavement from your benevolent government masters!”
Is more hyper emotional name calling instead of a reference to your source on various extinctions vs the adoption of coal, and then internal combustion engines.
Yes. That is all true. And Mr. Sillett is a real scientist and a mad man. I read his study as factual but the news reads his study as proof of the boogeyman hiding behind the climate tree. Sadly, many people do not understand that and only listen to fake news, bought off scientists, and emasculated government employees. Sequoia sempervirens is 100k stronger than humans, most of whom are naive about that reality. Polar Bears are doing just fine as well if you look into actual scientific data. But that is a keyboard to far for many given the Patty Hearst mental capture. That is sad what happened back then, failed utopian dreams. Unfortunately, humanity is doomed under these current humans, de-evolution for the majority, caviar dreams and champagne wishes for the elite class. They hate you. In response, never give up and do not listen to anything they say. Just blow them off……..with the Pineapple Express.
“Sequoia sempervirens is 100k stronger than humans”
Sounds like the Carlin view ie the earth is doing fine and humans are deluded if they think they are making an impact…in the meantime we are causing mass extinctions, creating so much plastic it is even in our blood, and breeding ourselves over the cliff of sustainability. To name a few…
The elite don’t hate you, they don’t see you at all unless they want their shoes shined or their house cleaned. But there are more of us than there are of them, and if we could pull out of our mass hypnosis…..
I recommend the book about redwoods by Richard Preston. Sillet is kind of a focus in the book, and he comes off as a real jerk in his private life. The true hero was this amateur guy from Eureka. A dude with a sho-lo, who worked at a Stop-n-rob in Eureka. He made it his mission to search out the tallest redwoods, and he did better than the well funded Lazer nerds from HSU. He rediscovered a lost Grove of giants somewhere out in the Rockefeller Grove.
This is for, “rollin, Al L lvesmtr, & thetallone,”
Guy’s? (gender neutral) Y’all been posting on this site for a long time now. Y’all really take advantage of the platform yet you’re still rockin the green, “Guest” label?
Maybe it’s time for you to start kicking in a bit to Kym & Co.?
To quote one of the two worst presidents we’ve ever had, “C’mon Man!”
You can still donate without logging in or whatever!
God Bless America!
And Americans too! I guess
Blaming everything on one political party or another is an even bigger mental disorder!
Chief Little Bullhorn?
Redwoods…the only tree I would ever hug….
and won’t hug you back
Blackberries hug. Too much.
And I’d prefer to do without poison oak’s gentle caress.
It seems like they are only considering the age of the trees, and not the mass that the pre-logging forests provided. Of course they’re drying out if you remove 95% of them.
On of our problems is that it’s hard to escape assumptions based on our biases. What does a redwood tree “want” anyway? What is “good” for them? To be tall? To be fat? Pretty? Is being tall helpful evolutionarily for them? Is it evolutionarily helpful for the trees to produce cones? How does stress affect seed production? What about falling down? Maybe a redwood’s ultimate goal is to fall over and re-sprout.
Well said. Thank you