Study
On tree longevity
Piovesan, G.; Biondi, F.
New Phytologist, 2021
A review of how tree ages are established and of what is known about maximum lifespans, distinguishing crossdated ring counts from estimates based on size, growth rate or radiocarbon.
- Studied in
- Tracheophyta
Reliable maximum ages come from a small number of species and rest on crossdated ring records. Many widely quoted ages, including for large tropical and clonal trees, rest on estimation methods with much larger uncertainty, and slow growth in harsh sites is a recurring feature of the genuinely oldest individuals.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Tree longevity records should be assessed by the method used to obtain them, and extreme ages are concentrated in slow-growing species on stressful sites.
How NatureHQ reads it
This supplies the distinction NatureHQ makes wherever an age appears: a crossdated ring count on a living stem, an estimate from growth rate, and the age of a clonal lineage are three different measurements with three different error bars, and they get compared as if they were one. It also contains a genuinely surprising pattern — the oldest trees are mostly in poor, cold, dry places, growing so slowly that they are hard to kill.
- A review of published ages rather than new dating.
- Crossdating is only possible where rings are annual and distinct, which excludes much of the tropics.
- Ages of clonal organisms remain estimates however carefully they are made.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Wiley journalsPublished in a Wiley journal.
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref and OpenAlex on 2026-08-30.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-30.