Live data from Hacker News

Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

nytimes.com

21–30 of 285 posts

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#21
post #6

For reasons I won't go into the farming lobby is really strong in Iceland. Sheep run free-range around the entire island, if you'd like to grow something that sheep like to eat you need to fence it in. It's not like pretty much anywhere else in the western world where people who own grazing animals need to fence them in. Thus the sheep range far and wide and destroy Iceland's native low-lying forests. Iceland's nativ…

I agree, you'd have to carefully protect your trees until they reach a reasonable size that they can hold their own.

Sheep will definitely prevent reforestation, although they are less likely than goats to harm saplings of a certain size.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#22

> As a result, Iceland is a case study in desertification, with little or no vegetation, though the problem is not heat or drought. About 40 percent of the country is desert, Dr. Halldorsson said. “But there’s plenty of rainfall — we call it ‘wet desert.’” At first I thought it was an error to call an area that gets plenty of rain a desert. I thought desert was strictly defined by the amount of rainfall. But maybe th…

The etymology of the word (think deserted island) would imply it has more to do with the lack of life than the reason for a lack of life.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#24

> When Iceland was first settled at the end of the ninth century, much of the land on or near the coast was covered in birch woodlands.

> The settlers slashed and burned the forests to grow hay and barley, and to create grazing land. They used the timber for building and for charcoal for their forges. By most accounts, the island was largely deforested within three centuries.

> The lack of trees, coupled with the ash and larger pieces of volcanic rock spewed by eruptions, has led to severe soil erosion.

> The [recovery] process usually begins with lyme grass, which grows quickly and can stabilize the soil. Lupine, with its spiky purple flowers, is often next. The trees come later.

> Mr. Jonsson and his volunteers then plant the appropriate species for the plot — birch, Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine, Russian larch or other species. “We’d love to plant aspen,” he said. “But sheep really love aspen.”

> With vegetation unable to gain much of a foothold, farming and grazing have been next to impossible in many parts of the country. And the loose soil, combined with Iceland’s strong winds, has led to sandstorms that can further damage the land — and even blast the paint off cars.

> No one expects that one-quarter of Iceland will ever be covered in forests again. But given slow growth rates and the enormity of the task, even more modest gains will take a long time, Mr. Thorvaldsson said.

> “The aim now is that in the next 50 years we might go up to 5 percent,” he said. “But at the speed we’re at now, it would take 150 years to do that.”

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#25
post #8

It's funny how so many Liberal minded types are overrunning Iceland gushing about how beautiful and stark the landscape is, when in reality they don't realize they are admiring just another devastated landscape of Europe. It's a general bias Europeans heavily have as they laud the beauty and natural state of Europe, while there is really not a single natural old growth forest anywhere on the whole continent and most…

What's your point? By the way, there are some very old forests still in Europe, I don't know if it makes them any better than ones that are only a hundred years old.

There are still so called primeval forests in Europe. Meaning they have grown in that place as far as we (human race) remember. They are small and strictly protected.

And yes, they are "better" on some metrics - the main difference is - whether the dead wood is removed from the forest or left there. There's lots of endangered species of birds, insects and even mammals that depend on dead wood, and industrialized forests (99% of what we have in Europe) doesn't have that.

Also natural forests are much more resistant to devastation by one particular insect or sickness, because only strong trees remain, species of trees (and generations of trees) are mixed with each other.

In industrialized forests (especially these created shortly after WW2) they just planted pine trees, all planted same year. When bark beetle has a "good" year - these forests have to be actively maintained (every tree attacked has to be removed before 2 weeks pass and beetles spread to nearby trees), or the whole forest dies in one year. Natural forests doesn't care, because weak, young trees of same species don't grow close enough for big epidemic.

BTW I only know that because we have a heated political debate in Poland - current anti-ecology government is cutting down some part of semi-natural forest surrounding protected natural forest under the excuse that bark bettle is going to destroy it otherways. Scientists and ecologists protest, wood industry support the government. Even EU is involved.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#27

So is this a case of terraforming Iceland?

I find quite interesting how we plan on terraform and colonize Mars when we can't even grow trees on Iceland.

In fairness, the article does mention several dedicated individuals; and who knows, they might inspire others - "many hands make light work".

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#28
For someone that lived in tropical places it is very awkward to see those videos on Iceland Air flights promoting tourism to Iceland and advertising its "rugged beauty", with lots of glaciers, geysers, volcanoes and ugly cold beaches with black sand.

Sorry Icelanders, you seem to be lovely people but your country looks very ugly, barren, dead, sad and desolate. I can't see natural beauty without life.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#29
post #2

Just wanted to say, props to NYT for the beautifully designed article.

This is one of the coolest articles I've ever seen. The subtle high-res videos are a really great complement to the content.

And they lagged like nobodies business when they were loading despite having 11Mbps down all to myself.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Which isn't to say that a devastated landscape can't be pretty." A bit like the Scottish Highlands - which are treeless largely because of the large numbers of deer maintained to support stalking (deer hunting) and because all their natural predators were killed centuries ago. There are some folks trying to replant the old forests - e.g. https://treesforlife.org.uk/

Wolves can help in this case too.

Yeah - there has been a fair amount of debate about reintroducing wolves and lynx to Scotland. Sea eagles have been reintroduced but they aren't quite large enough to eat deer... ;-)
Post reply on HN