19

I came across a story on Facebook about David Latimer, who put spiderwort plants into a bottle garden ("terrarium") in 1960, watered it in 1972, and then sealed the bung. The plants have been living, thriving even, in their own ecosystem since.

The story was reported in the Daily Mail.

Thriving since 1960, my garden in a bottle: Seedling sealed in its own ecosystem and watered just once in 53 years

  • David Latimer first planted his bottle garden in 1960 and last watered it in 1972 before tightly sealing it shut 'as an experiment'

  • The hardy spiderworts plant inside has grown to fill the 10-gallon container by surviving entirely on recycled air, nutrients and water

Here it is again in The Times. There are a few more places this article can be found in various forms on the web.

I find myself extremely skeptical of this notion, however. I'm no zoologist or expert in plant sciences, but I am an engineer and the principle of energy conservation in a closed system already doesn't sit well here in my mind. Also, the article being mostly on websites such as The Daily Mail (the only exception being The Times), most of which have a reputation for posting spoof / exaggerated articles already makes me even more skeptical. I also noticed that most of the articles I found, including the mention on Facebook, state that this plant has been growing for different time periods. Some say 50 years, some 53. The Facebook one says it's been growing for 40 years. This kind of inconsistency also brings up red flags in my book.

Lastly, my brother is doing his Masters degree in Plant Sciences and he had the following to say in a nutshell (paraphrased from a phone conversation):

This is pure BS. That bottle would have very little CO2 in it. In order for that plant to grow like that it would need to have thousands times time CO2. Even if you were to open the bottle from time to time, it's not a matter of fresh air, it's a matter of the amount of molecules available in the bottle. Because it's a 'nearly' isolated system, the amount of nutrients and water that is able to circulate would limit the growth at some point, regardless of how much sun it gets. In any case, random fungi and plant sicknesses would grow faster in there and cause everything to rot and die before it got the chance to get anywhere near that kind of growth. It happens all the time in my greenhouses.

So I ask is this article accurate? Is my brother with his Master's degree (whom I'm inclined to believe) right that it is impossible?

DeVil
  • 997
  • 1
  • 7
  • 16
  • Didn't they try to do this with the Eden project? If I remember correctly, it failed due to an inability to keep a stable environment inside a "bottled" system. – Polynomial Apr 14 '13 at 21:31
  • @Sancho Doesn't mean they're right every time, especially if it's reactionary journalism in response to the Daily Fail article. – Polynomial Apr 14 '13 at 21:32
  • 3
    @Polynomial: You may be thinking of [Biosphere 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2) - the Eden project isn't a hermetically sealed ecosystem. – RedGrittyBrick Apr 14 '13 at 23:17
  • @RedGrittyBrick That's the one. – Polynomial Apr 14 '13 at 23:21
  • 1
    @Sancho: Notability is provided by the newspaper links. I see the brother's claim as providing justification for being skeptical, and a reason for asking for more reliable evidence than a single person's claim being reproduced by news agencies. One kind of proof might be more examples. – Oddthinking Apr 15 '13 at 01:49
  • @Sancho I'm not looking for anything "specific" as proof, shall we say. I just find my brother who is doing his Masters in this field telling me it's absolute BS, and then finding the same thing on multiple articles, with commenters saying they used to have a garden like that in stark contrast. I would just like some other example perhaps or a reputable website with decent sources that this is possible for certain cases. I didn't mean for you to prove my brother right or wrong as such, I'm just very skeptical about it all so I stated his view as the contrary point. – DeVil Apr 15 '13 at 05:20
  • @Polynomial Biosphere 2 failed because they indeed were incapable of sealing the system, someone forgot that concrete is porous and didn't coat it, oops. Doesn't itself mean it's impossible to produce a sealed system, but does show that a system thought to be sealed doesn't have to be. – jwenting Apr 15 '13 at 06:15
  • @DeVil not an answer but to explain the "varying lengths of time" concern: the plant was planted in 1960 - 53 years ago; it was later *watered* in 1972 - 40 years ago. Both time frames apply but to different elements of the plant's ecosystem. – KutuluMike Apr 15 '13 at 14:43
  • 1
    Took me a bit of time to find this, but conceptually isn't this basically the same idea as the [commercial EcoSpheres](http://www.abundantearth.com/store/ecosphere.html)? – rjzii Apr 15 '13 at 16:31
  • @RobZ yes, though the samples of those I've owned over the years (different brands, not that specific one) tended to not last more than a year or so on average. – jwenting Apr 16 '13 at 05:45
  • 3
    Remember too: A plant sealed in a bottle IS NOT a closed system--plants are powered by the sun or at least a light source, and therefore your fears should be alleviated on that point. – avgvstvs May 22 '13 at 12:32
  • I don't think you are getting mixed ages of the plant. From my understanding, it was planted in '60, and bunged up in 72. So while it's 52/3 years old, it has been bunged for 40 years. I'm inclined to believe it has survived all this time on recycled air from decomposition, an internal water cycle and sunlight, which can still enter. I don't think this is fully self sustaining, however. I'm sure there will come a time when the decomposition is not providing the plant with high enough levels of carbon dioxide and it will slowly die. The spiderwort may just die of natural causes before that happ –  Jun 09 '13 at 21:05
  • The main problem for me is that the article seems to imply that this plant has been kept in the dark ("under the stairs"). How can it photosynthesize in there? –  Aug 16 '13 at 10:52
  • @Shell the Daily Mail has a photo of the "under the stairs" in question. It's in a bright hallway, near a window - not in the dark behind a door. – slim Oct 10 '13 at 12:21
  • There are certainly such experiments done. I have seen some at the museum on natural history in Gothenburg that had been sealed for several years. I also found an article at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1063/UWash.pdf about the subject. – liftarn Dec 05 '14 at 16:10

1 Answers1

9

As mentioned in the comments, the fact that The Times published this story, with a photograph of said plant, is already compelling evidence that it happened, but of course it's possible they have been fooled. If we're not willing to take The Times nor Mr. Latimer's word as evidence, we really have no way to prove that he's telling the truth, as we haven't been there for 40 years to watch the plant grow.

However, there is no reason, in theory, the a plant like this could not survive in a bottled environment. The key element missing form your brother's argument is that bacteria in the soil will break down the dead leaves that fall from the plant and release CO2 back into the bottle. (Plants also release a tiny amount of CO2 on their own, though nowhere near as much as they consume during photosynthesis.)

Unfortunately, most of the actual published articles I can find on the quantity of CO2 released by bacteria are written from the perspective of "global climate change", so I'm always bit skeptical of their numbers. The most accessible one I could find on short notice was this article from Yale's E360 magazine, which is usually fairly even-handed. Among other things, it notes:

Together, microbes lock up — and release — a huge amount of carbon. The world’s soils — the product of bacteria and fungi breaking down plant matter — contain more than 2.5 trillion tons of carbon.

Meanwhile, the microbes that break plant matter into soil release 55 billion tons a year of carbon dioxide.

Given that the bottle containing the plant in question appears to be almost 1/2 filled with soil, I would not be too skeptical of its ability to survive in a sealed environment for a long period of time.

Also, note that of the four seeds he planted, only the spiderwort survived. It doesn't mention which species of Tradescantia he planted, but members of that genus are known for being particularly "hardy" plants. This botanical comparison of them mentions that they actually thrive in conditions when they are not watered regularly (though they won't flower nearly as often, something that is evident from the article's photographs):

Spiderworts prefer moist, well-drained soils, but do not like their roots to be overly wet or dry. [...] Foliar diseases are exacerbated by frequent overhead irrigation. Garden spiderworts are winter hardy in USDA Zones 4-9.

KutuluMike
  • 2,160
  • 1
  • 22
  • 22
  • 1
    This is largely speculation, and trying to apply global values to a microcosm. It doesn't talk about whether all the required minerals are completely recycled, if spiderworts need insects to germinate, or any the other things that could go wrong. You need evidence that plants *do* survive in such conditions, not that they *could, as far as you can tell*. – Oddthinking Apr 15 '13 at 16:08
  • 1
    that's true, mostly because I couldn't find anything more authoritative than "the article in the Times with the pictures of it happening" :\. As far as germinating, tho, this was the same single spiderwort living for 50+ years. There was no germination happening after the bottle was sealed. – KutuluMike Apr 15 '13 at 17:53
  • 5
    The photo "is already compelling evidence that it happened, but of course it's possible they have been fooled." - therefore, *it's not evidence*. – Sklivvz Apr 15 '13 at 20:44
  • 3
    @Sklivvz it's compelling evidence *to me*; I could equally argue that every paper cited on this site is a forgery, hoax, or mistake (and I consider a photo in The Times far more reliable than many other reliable sources...) – KutuluMike Apr 15 '13 at 21:08
  • 3
    @MichaelEdenfield we seem to disagree on what evidence is. To me, evidence is a *hard facts*, thus *objective* in nature. – Sklivvz Apr 15 '13 at 21:23
  • 4
    I agree that evidence should be objective. What is subjective is whether you believe that the evidence you are given by an external source is both 1. sufficient to justify your acceptance of a conclusion, 2. a representation of facts that are *actually true*. In this case, if you reject The Times as evidence, and you reject the botanist's own word as evidence, there's not really any *definitive* evidence left short of watching the plant grow with your own eyes. So I tried to provide evidence that the OP's objections were unfounded as well. – KutuluMike Apr 15 '13 at 21:28
  • @MichaelEdenfield we still don't understand each other. [This is what scientific evidence is](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence). Since this is a *scientific* question, "Can a plant survive...?", then an answer should stand on *scientific* evidence. – Sklivvz Apr 16 '13 at 19:27
  • 1
    I'm not disputing what evidence is. I'm disputing how credible the *source* of the evidence is. Suppose I declared that I believed everything ever printed in *Nature* was a hoax using faked studies; does that make those articles and paper stop being evidence, or does it merely reflect my level of trust in the *truth* of that evidence? It seems like we are disagreeing on the answer to that question. Since the OP did not trust the Times to provide true evidence, I went and found more. – KutuluMike Apr 16 '13 at 19:31
  • 6
    @MichaelEdenfield the thing is, no real measurements were made of this system. For instance: the claim is that the plant has been living in a **sealed** ecosystem for forty years. However, the bung is likely a common cork bung, and thus permeable to atmosphere - meaning that there's probably been a (slow) exchange of gasses between the bottle and the outside world. That sort of non-attention to detail and exaggerated claims makes even the Times not a great source. It's not really about credibility - it's about *thoroughness*, and how science reporting lacks thereof. – Tacroy Apr 16 '13 at 21:59
  • 1
    I think the brother's objection is not that the plant can't survive, but that it cannot /grow/. The articles seem to indicate that a small seedling was planted and all matter required for the plant to grow must have been contained in the bottle before it was sealed. – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Apr 17 '13 at 14:05
  • FYI To find small scale measurements if decomposition, search for "microcosm litter decomposition" – Abe Apr 30 '13 at 03:55
  • 3
    Actually, the photo is poor evidence as 1) we don't know how big the plant was when the cork was put on (has it just survived or did it actually grow?) 2) we don't know whether the cork actually seals the bottle. However, the experiment is easily reproducible: come back in 20 years and I'll tell you... – nico Jun 08 '13 at 13:33
  • News reports I have seen indicate that the plants were mature before he sealed the bottle. Planted in the "early 60s", watered again in 1972. Sealed thereafter. – slim Oct 10 '13 at 12:18
  • 2
    @KutuluMike I realize that this is a very old thread, but I just had to highlight some issues in your perspective. Your idea that A) all sources of evidence are equally non-definitive and open to frauds, and B) there is no difference between The Times' unverifiable journalistic articles, and Nature's extensively peer reviewed and critically analysed publications of primary research, shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and the scientific review process. Evidence that is published in science has been exhaustively reviewed just to get there, and the testing never ends. – Herbzical Feb 08 '17 at 22:43
  • 1
    This is a really old question but some things bug me: 1. The article in The Times is no evidence at all. Surely you do not think The Times actually tried to verify or in any way proove the man's claim was true? What they did was more in the lines of "So this plant has been sealed for 40 years?" "Yup." "Cool, we have a story.". It's a sort of "wacky" story all news outlets use and don't try to verify. 2. I am not botanist (and am puzzled why noone has just asked one by now) but I know about the Law of Concervation of Energy, which holds everywhere and for everything. – mathgenius Mar 20 '18 at 21:15
  • cont... meaning the amount energy or matter at the start of an isolated system WILL be the the same at the end. And since plants consume nutrients and water in order to live they CAN'T somehow extrude the same amount of water and nutrients and reuse them again. – mathgenius Mar 20 '18 at 21:21
  • 1
    @mathgenius: Given that the glass is obviously transparent, this is not isolated. There's Sun in the system as well - an external energy source. – Piskvor left the building Feb 10 '19 at 14:40
  • @mathgenius with regards to matter (not energy) is there any good reason to think a plant can't grow at the exact same rate it dies, in equilibrium? – user253751 May 02 '22 at 16:11