Beware of “Fact-Checking” Especially When AI is Involved: The Case of Aspen Clones

This photo is from NFF.

 

Many of you are probably aware that there is a new industry in town, that of “fact-checking.”  It turns out, in many instances, that the person doing the checking is not an expert on the topic.  Perhaps, to link to yesterday’s post, it’s too expensive to have experts involved.   And many times AI is involved, which leads to a specific kind of mushiness, usually involving a complex idea that is missed, and includes not being careful about definitions of words (to be fair to the AI, they just collect words as used, and don’t actually have to make sense of them).

Here’s an example I ran across yesterday.

It was in response to this tweet

Aspen groves share their roots,  Deliver water to thirsty shoots In harmony, they feed the forest, Their fate intertwined.

Here’s the fact check from the Colorado Sun.  Here’s what they say about their methodology

The Colorado Sun partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-size fact-checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Here’s how it comes out.

A group of aspen trees, known as an aspen stand, are often connected to a single root system.

The trees spread underground with new trunks growing up from the same root system. Aspen groves are referred to as clones since the trees share many of the same genetics.

The root systems of aspens can be hundreds or even thousands of years old even though their trunks may only last 100 years. According to the U.S. Forest Service, one root system in Utah was found to be 80,000 years old.

Shared roots make aspens resilient. Trunks burned down or felled by disease quickly grow back. The trees are fast growers, and softer than many other hardwoods. They are a favorite of woodpeckers and a staple for elk, moose, deer and beaver.

Quaking aspens, the most common species, are found in the Midwest, Canada, Alaska and many Western states.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

See full source list below.

Here’s what I would say.   Aspen stands can be made up of different clones.  You can sometimes tell because one clone will leaf out or turn color at different times than a neighboring clone.  Groves and clones are not necessarily the same thing.  The word “grove” according to Merriam Webster is “a small wood without underbrush or a planting of fruit or nut trees.”  And clones don’t have “many of the same genetics” by definition (Merriam Webster again)

1a  the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by or from a single progenitor cell or organism.

Now definitely there can be mutations occurring as stems and branches grow.. but “many of the same genetics”?

It is correct to say that a clone “shares” its root system (with itself?).  Of course, it’s poetic… but why “fact-check” poetry anyway?  Let’s imagine.. “do daffodils really dance”? Fact-check.

I went back to the original sources, which were very clear and accurate IMHO.

When I clicked on those, here’s what I got from the USFWS link:

Every tree in an aspen stand is often connected to a single root system. They spread through underground roots with new trunks growing up from the roots. So, every tree in a stand may have the same genetics. Because of this, aspen groves are often referred to as clones.

Here’s what the link to NFF said:

One aspen tree is actually only a small part of a larger organism. A stand or group of aspen trees is considered a singular organism with the main life force underground in the extensive root system. Before a single aspen trunk appears above the surface, the root system may lie dormant for many years until the conditions are just right, including sufficient sunlight. In a single stand, each tree is a genetic replicate of the other, hence the name a “clone” of aspens used to describe a stand.

So the AI actually took accurate sources and somehow fuzzed them up.  Maybe we need to introduce a new verb “to AI” defined as:

“to take coherent information from primary sources and make it less clear and accurate.”

On a cheerier note, perhaps a field trip to the Fishlake National Forest is in order at this time of year…

The National Forest Foundation has an interesting write-up on the Pando aspen clone.

Weighing in at 13 million pounds, the collective root system of these 40,000 aspen trees is believed to have been born from a single seed at the end of the last ice age (about 2.6 million years ago!)

During the summer visitors can bask in the vibrant green leaves of the aspens, catching a break from the Utah heat while wandering through the clone. But just wait until fall rolls around when the trees turn the 106 acres into a golden beacon of light on the Forest. Walk through the clone and witness the largest organism ever discovered!

3 thoughts on “Beware of “Fact-Checking” Especially When AI is Involved: The Case of Aspen Clones”

  1. I agree, Sharon, a stand of aspen can be composed of one clone or multiple clones. The NFF info shows how they struggle (like most every entity) to keep all parts of their website current and consistent.

    Another quote from the NFF website: “Although Pando cannot be aged using current techniques, most scientists agree that the Pando seed set down sometime between 8,000 and 12,000 years ago when climate currents in the region shifted at the end of the last ice age.”
    https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/pando-documenting-a-tree-that-redefines-what-trees-can-be

    Hopefully, AI fact-checking will develop better critical “thinking” skills in the future

    Reply
    • I was also annoyed that the Sun (whom I generally think of as a good outlet) thought to label this piece “original reporting”.. “This article contains firsthand information gathered by reporters. This includes directly interviewing sources and analyzing primary source documents.” Perhaps we need to see relative contributions by human and AI “reporters” to judge how much confidence we should place in a so-called “fact check.”

      Reply
  2. AI agrees, too, that “Aspen stands can be made up of different clones:” “A group of aspen trees, known as an aspen stand, are OFTEN connected to a single root system” (emphasis added). It then says that “groves,” not “stands,” are referred to as “clones.” (Are we trying to split root hairs here?) Except AI got the grammar wrong: a group IS singular.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading