Giant trees have tricks to work around drought 18%

By Fechi Inyama0%

7/2/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 1,194 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.2% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,020 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

Daring tree climbers and researchers have challenged a major assumption in tree drought biology. 
In rainforests on the Southeast Asian island of Borneo, water transport systems of a colossal, dominating family of trees are not more impaired than shorter trees in the A daring tree climbers and researchers have challenged a major assumption in tree drought biology. 
In rainforests on the Southeast Asian island of Borneo, water transport systems of a colossal, dominating family of trees are not more impaired than shorter trees in the face of drought, researchers report July 2 in&nbsp;<em>Science</em>. 
The find counters the notion that gravity makes these giants more vulnerable to drought by stymying hydration of their higher branches and crowns. 
The study cannot confirm that this holds true for all tree families. 
But the findings can help inform conservation efforts, the researchers say. 
The path from roots to leaves becomes longer in taller trees. 
Water traveling up a tree’s vessels, or xylem, encounters more resistance the higher it goes, says plant functional ecologist Arne Scheire, now at the Southeast Asia Rainforest Research Partnership in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. 
And thanks to gravity, lengthier xylems have a more stifled water potential, or the propensity of the water to be sucked up as the plant's leaves release water. 
But no experiments verify that taller trees fall victim to these pressures during drought, Scheire says. 
So Scheire, then at the University of Exeter in England, and his colleagues ventured to the lush, humid rainforest of Malaysia's Kabili Sepilok Forest Reserve. 
There, the incomprehensibly high crowns of trees in the Dipterocarpaceae family tower over the canopy. 
The researchers teamed with professional climbers, waking before dawn to sample leaf, trunk and branch samples from different tree heights throughout the day. 
The 38 trees they studied included five species, ranging from 7.7 meters to 71 meters tall  over three-fourths as tall as the Statue of Liberty. 
They measured 25 traits related to tree water transport. 
On average, taller trees start off with larger xylem widths at their base&nbsp;— a strategy that compensates for increased resistance with height, the team found. 
And higher leaves adjusted their dehydration limit to accommodate less water being sucked to them. 
Those adaptations seemingly helped during an intense drought lasting from 2023 to 2024. 
The team found that there were no height-related declines in growth rate among their sampled trees, suggesting that drought responses were independent of tree height. 
A competing theory already was casting doubt on height impairing water transport. 
It predicted that larger trees would have adaptations like the ones shown in the study, says Julieta Rosell, a functional ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City who wasn't involved with the work.&nbsp;It's neat, she says, that the theory &#8220;motivated these researchers to test the uppermost parts of tall trees&#8230;. 
This was never done before.” 
Big trees can store massive amounts of aboveground carbon, and they contribute to ecosystems by producing seeds and providing habitats for numerous tropical organisms. 
Because this tree family is not at greater susceptibility to drought, it &#8220;may be a good long-term spot to sequester carbon” in Southeast Asia,&nbsp;Scheire says. 
For Rosell, the findings encourage a rethink about trees' nature. 
“They're doing things all the time, making changes in their anatomy all the time,&#8221; she says. 
&#8220;And that gives a different perspective to trees because they seem so quiet. 
&#8221; 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%Fechi Inyama: 4.3%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 1.6%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Fechi Inyama: 3.9%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 4.4%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 7.0%Fechi Inyama: 1.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 1.2%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%Fechi Inyama: 7.6%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect24.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.3%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Fechi Inyama: 2.3%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 5.1%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 5.0%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 1.4%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Fechi Inyama: 0.9%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.5%Fechi Inyama: 9.1%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority21.5%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.5%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 1.5%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.6%Fechi Inyama: 4.7%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 2.1%Fechi Inyama: 0.3%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring2.1%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%Fechi Inyama: 2.4%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.8%Fechi Inyama: 4.1%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.7%Fechi Inyama: 0.7%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 4.2%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature4.2%This article: 4.4%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division4.4%This article: 2.8%Fechi Inyama: 0.8%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Fechi Inyama: 2.1%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.0%Fechi Inyama: 3.2%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote17.0%This article: 9.5%Fechi Inyama: 1.3%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection9.5%This article: 24.7%Fechi Inyama: 8.0%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice24.7%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.6%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fechi Inyama: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech408writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageArne Scheire • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageArne Scheire • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJulieta Rosell • 54 words • 100.0% coverageJulieta Rosell • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageArne Scheire • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJulieta Rosell • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJulieta Rosell • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJulieta Rosell • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Julieta Rosell

99%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words55% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+60.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Julieta Rosell: 60.7%60.7%Unattributed Quote+50.1 ptsWriter: 10.5%Julieta Rosell: 60.7%60.7%Biased Writer Voice-34.6 ptsWriter: 34.6%Julieta Rosell: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.