Return Home

A Question Of Biggitude: What's The Largest Creature On Earth?

Thursday, May 08, 2014 - 12:00 PM

What's the biggest living thing on Earth? I can think of two. I'm not sure which is biggest, but neither of them is a blue whale. These are weirder. Much, much weirder.

One is a tree. The other eats trees.

This is the tree.

J. Zapell/USDA

Now, I know this looks like more than one tree. If you were counting, it looks like 47,000 trees — what normal people might call "a forest." But these trees are not separate beings. Every one of them is attached to a single underground root system, making each tree a stem projecting up from a common root. So the whole thing is an individual. Think of it as hairs spiking up from a secret underground head. In the fall, when it's time to change color, all these trees flip into golden yellow almost at once, as if the whole bunch just got a color rinse. Oh, and it's got a name: Pando. That's Latin for "I spread."

Pando was measured and given statistical biggitude by University of Colorado ecology professor Michael Grant, who was listening to NPR one day and heard about the other so-called biggest living thing on Earth, and decided, no, that other one is too unlovely. We can do better, he thought. That took him to Fish Lake, Utah, where he began measuring the quaking aspen trees that compose Pando.

The Other One

Minute Earth/YouTube

The other biggest living thing is also in America, in Oregon. It's so unpicturesque, I couldn't find a good photo of it because it lives almost entirely underground. It's hiding under more than 2,200 acres and is, in effect, a giant mushroom that spreads and strangles trees by sucking off their nutrients, making it impossible for the trees above it to get water.

So which one is biggest? The "tree"? Or the "tree strangler"? Well, it's a very, very close call, delightfully described by the very exacting, but very jolly folks at Minute Earth: 

Minute Earth/YouTube


More in:

Comments [5]


"Doesn't 'creature' denote an animal rather than simply a 'living thing'?"

"crea·ture (krēchər)
a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water."

So, they are technically correct, but yes, the connotation of "creature" is that is an animal, or at least something sentient because fantasy and science fiction things such as ents (sentient trees that can walk and talk in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings) and crystalline entities in Star Trek would also be called "creature".

From the American Heritage Dictionary

May. 15 2014 03:08 PM
cam from Boston

"Creature" simply denoyes a thing created which may or may not be living. One could also argue that the Australian coral reef is the world's largest living creature.

May. 15 2014 04:58 AM
Jeremy Webb

Still sounds a bit undecided. The Pando and Honey Mushroom should have a fight and the survivor wins the title of "Biggest Living Organism On Earth (That We Found So Far)".

Just colonize the soil in Pando's forest with the spores or mycellium of the Honey Mushroom and let them go at it. I bet the mushroom wins.

May. 14 2014 04:55 PM

"Doesn't "creature" denote an animal rather than simply a "living thing"?"


glad i could clear that up for you.

May. 14 2014 01:15 PM
John D

Doesn't "creature" denote an animal rather than simply a "living thing"? In which case the headline doesn't match the text.

May. 14 2014 05:23 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Supported by