[nomel]

This goes against all previous research/measurements for actually tall trees (looks like they only considered up to 80m) and the fact that there are exactly zeros trees in the world taller than 130 meters [1]. Wide capillaries at the base, like stated in the article, don't seem to be related.

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/REDWOODS-How-tall-can...

[fc417fc802]

I agree it doesn't pass the sniff test (where are the 500 meter trees in the rainforests?) but I think it would make an excellent goal for molecularbiological and genetic engineering. We (our civilization) need to become much more skilled at that before we start editing the human germline, and we will inevitably want to edit the human germline eventually (or rather we are currently exhibiting great restraint in not doing so but I'm not sure how much longer that will last), and anyway thousand meter trees just sound like they would be really cool.

[oersted]

Sounds cool but for such experimentation you would want relatively fast experimental iterations to get anywhere, and this would take literal ages. You can play around with growth speed of course but that’s a different question and might be in some ways opposed to achieving height.

[fc417fc802]

I don't think so. You don't have to reach the height limit just to iteratively develop the initial implementation of the pump system. A system that actively moves water would push it out the top so you've got an observable phenomenon to work with.

[oersted]

I’m sure there will be a ton of unexpected complexities that arise only when you are trying to push the limits, like in all engineering domains. And it’s all a highly interconnected system, you cannot expect to dramatically change the water flow without impacting others aspects.

I know it is quite distant, but from my experience in large-scale data engineering, 90% of the time goes in addressing subtle issues that can only be observed hours into a job, the rest of the issues are quickly resolved earlier. I am assuming that such complexities will be so much harder in physical systems, and even more so in biological systems.

[Sharlin]

There are obviously other factors limiting tree growth, like compressive strength.

[ghaff]

I seem to recall for some long-ago course that the 8,000m peaks are up around the compresssive limit so yoou couldn't really have a taller mountain.

[Sharlin]

In theory you can always have taller mountains if you just have a (exponentially!) wider base. But given all sorts of practical constraints, Earth mountains are pretty much limited to <10 km.

[Jweb_Guru]

Mostly true on Earth, but not on other planets with lower gravity, and AFAIK it depends on the rock type. Hence why you have Olympus Mons on Mars (or insanely tall ice mountains on Pluto, when that material couldn't form such a steep talus angle on Earth).

[ghaff]

Well, yes, I'm talking about ~1g on earth. And, also yes, rock type makes a difference but I assume there is some commonality with the tallest peaks.

[fc417fc802]

Which would also serve as reasonable challenges for genetic and molecularbiological engineering so ... what's your point?

Or do you mean to suggest that the failure of any accepted tree height records to surpass the maximum capillary distance can be explained by some other factor? (Based on your other comment it seems safe to assume that isn't what you meant but anyhow.) That seems far too convenient given that the observed cutoff is within the expected range.

[Sharlin]

I was referring to your "500m trees" which would be over 3x taller than the tallest trees ever seen.

[raducu]

> where are the 500 meter trees in the rainforests.

There could be structural reason as to why it's not possible, not pumping water *

[gre]

> 500m

500ft is taller than the max ever, not 1640 ft

[cortesoft]

Couldn't both things be true? Water transport is not the limiting factor, but some other thing is?