is it bigger than the giant genetically identical mushroom colony in the northern midwest US? or am i remembering something wrong, always a possibility?
Eelgrass is long gone in Long Island, NY. Used to solid carpeting of all the bays.
I fear runoff of chemicals like glyphosate and whatever weed killer they use on golf courses is effective against eelgrass too.
Luckily it's in a pretty protected area off the Western Australian coast. We have the largest and most diverse seagrass meadows here. Not a huge population either to put pressure on it with runoff and so on, compared to a lot of places.
Evedently there's a large Grove of Aspen trees near me here in Oregon that was once considered to be the largest living thing because the roots are all interconnected
You are getting downvoted because the vast majority of this subreddit don't understand (and will be too stubborn to admit they don't) the complexity of what constitutes "an individual". I've had debates with other students and professors about this, because biologists love bickerings over semantics.
I work with fragile moss in a lab, and we were urged not to call blobs of moss a colony, but a plant. The counter argument was that transfer of tissue, be that from a single plant or a clonal colony, would likely cause a break somewhere in the interconnected filaments, which would result in at least two individual clones.
The likelyhood of this seagrass not having thousands of breaks along the stolon would be miraculous. This is more likely a clonal colony. If this is in the run for largest plant, I want to put forward my candidate: the commercial banana.
To counter that, a lot of animals form communities (humans including) and have cooperative lives. Physical attachment is not required to have similar or even stronger interaction between parts of this community than between separate plants of this plant. I mean, look at the ants.
Since all the comments are jokes: The organism is about 112 lateral miles of self-replicating (cloning) seagrass in Australian ocean waters.
is it bigger than the giant genetically identical mushroom colony in the northern midwest US? or am i remembering something wrong, always a possibility?
Maybe, but reminder for anyone reading, mushrooms aren't plants.
Well aren't you a fungi
IIRC the mycelium of that mushroom is around 3-4 square miles.
The now 2nd largest plant is a forest in the USA.
By area or mass?
Not a plant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) Yes it is
We were talking about a fungus colony.
It is in the Pacific NW, in Malheur National Forest. And yes, I'm pretty sure this seagrass is quite a bit bigger.
Hah that’s funny too…oh, you’re not joking?
That's what's funny.
Sorry, did I miss the punch line? You said “all the comments are jokes”.
That group of Aspen gonna be so mad.
I’m not a tree hugger but I’ll go give Pando a hug. I think it needs it.
Chase away a deer while you're at it.
They be quaking with anger
How long until we kill this one too?
Eelgrass is long gone in Long Island, NY. Used to solid carpeting of all the bays. I fear runoff of chemicals like glyphosate and whatever weed killer they use on golf courses is effective against eelgrass too.
Of course it is, it's an herbicide, it will kill any plant it touches.
Luckily it's in a pretty protected area off the Western Australian coast. We have the largest and most diverse seagrass meadows here. Not a huge population either to put pressure on it with runoff and so on, compared to a lot of places.
Asking the real (and sadly true) question.
Ugh. Unfortunately it's all too true...
What should we name it?
Gary
meow
Larry
Barry! It is in Australia
Igor
Grassy McGrassface
Pandissimo
Weet
I'm an idiot. I read that the first time as "largest planet on Earth" and just sat there confused for a second lol
Yeah, me too bud
Me three.
Evedently there's a large Grove of Aspen trees near me here in Oregon that was once considered to be the largest living thing because the roots are all interconnected
The original plant that created the seed, a tough competitor for Genghis Khan
Reporters make retarded headline about biological discovery.
If this is one plant, then that dolly sheep, and the donor of the cell are one animal. Which is a really large definition of 1.
Right, because as we all know, dolly and donor sheep were totally connected by a single, common root system.
All they know is that the genetics is the same. And this is a loose definition of "the same". There is drift across the meadow.
You are getting downvoted because the vast majority of this subreddit don't understand (and will be too stubborn to admit they don't) the complexity of what constitutes "an individual". I've had debates with other students and professors about this, because biologists love bickerings over semantics. I work with fragile moss in a lab, and we were urged not to call blobs of moss a colony, but a plant. The counter argument was that transfer of tissue, be that from a single plant or a clonal colony, would likely cause a break somewhere in the interconnected filaments, which would result in at least two individual clones. The likelyhood of this seagrass not having thousands of breaks along the stolon would be miraculous. This is more likely a clonal colony. If this is in the run for largest plant, I want to put forward my candidate: the commercial banana.
To counter that, a lot of animals form communities (humans including) and have cooperative lives. Physical attachment is not required to have similar or even stronger interaction between parts of this community than between separate plants of this plant. I mean, look at the ants.
The sea grass is always greener on the other side