7 ms·

Are those trees native to Iceland? I would hope that they aren't just trying to increase forest cover using species that have the potential to be invasive.

woodruffw 4y ago
I think by "birch" they mean the Icelandic birch[1], which is the only tree that's actually native to Iceland. The others (Siberian larch, Alder variants) were probably previously endemic, even if they aren't "truly" native. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_pubescens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_pubescens
- elevaet 4y ago
  Yes that's correct re the Birch. I believe the alder was what we call Slide Alder, which is useful for holding down the soil and preventing erosion on steeper areas. Not sure which Larch it was.
mistrial9 4y ago
the science shows dramatic changes in temperatures and rainfall in the far North. Planting new tree stands certainly ought not be bound by a "pure native" perspective, in these times. While you and I split hairs, not a small amount of money is being invested in genetically engineered flora of all kinds, boasting that it is "climate change ready." A much bigger problem than "pure native" to my way of thinking.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  People get all twisted up over the idea of genetically engineered plants breaking out into the wild though. But, once we're staring down the barrel of the climate apocalypse it'd be cool to go nuts with genetically engineered plants like: Here's a giant redwood that grows 10x faster, filters particulates out of the air with its needles and is designed to extract carbon from the air as fast as possible.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad Caverns and other deep caves.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Might need both. Also lots of insect-based nutrient paste, made with your daily water ration (helps mask the unpleasant mineral and chlorine taste of the water so you don't dehydrate in the 40 C heat).
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    designer grass in different colors; fish genes in oranges; new mammals as pets designed to sell.. people know very well that is what is going on.. pure BS to make a buck, like "fast growing things that live 600 years" .. like fake medicine, but worse because it breeds. zero confidence in MBAs and shysters making this a GMO business to "save the planet" ok - better, plants whose seeds die instead of refreshing; plants that are allegedly immune to only MY brand of poison and won't hurt anything; trees with patents.
- otikik 4y ago
  The fact that bugs me is that artificial selection is “fine”. If randomness produces a mutation, that’s kosher, but if man makes the change, that’s Dangerous.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Any mutation could be "dangerous." We're just used to a system that produces mutations randomly so we estimate the danger to be in the background. Targeted changes also can produce unknown side effects, which to my understand are what non-GMO folks fear. Toxicity, missing nutrients, etc. could certainly be issues with adjustments, but I don't think the right approach is to fear so much as to attack things two fold: test the biological systems outputs, and learn the biological systems outputs sufficiently to simulate impacts.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    If man was making said changes at the rate random useful mutations tend to occur in nature I don't think anyone would be concerned. And we typically do more than just tweak a genetic component in a single individual and see how it fares against existing populations - if the change suits our short term goals, we'll do everything we can to ensure that becomes the dominant variant, often destroying the genetic diversity that provides long term durability in the process.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    If man makes the change he installs DRM into the GMO.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Because man like to make mistakes at scale.
wnevets 4y ago
> potential to be invasive. Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  Yes, why wouldn't it be? Any non native species can disrupt an ecosystem in any number of ways. For trees for example, they can shade or crowd out native species.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    Because trees tend to grow very slowly, which should mean they should be fairly easy to control. Not to mention the useful wood if any population culling needs to occur.
    - Foobar8568 4y ago
      Typically the Japanese knotweed is considered as highly invasive and a pest in Europe. Almost impossible to get rid off due to its fast growth and deep root system.
      - wnevets 4y ago
        According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1] [1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/ https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/
        Foobar8568 4y ago
        There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.
        yellowapple 4y ago
        I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.
klyrs 4y ago
To be fair, Iceland is only about 16 million years old, and trees have been around for about 350 million years. What's native to Surtsey?
- Hellion 4y ago
  That’s a bit of a willful misinterpretation Native is more about replanting things into a stable ecosystem, versus non native, which can become invasive and detrimental to that ecosystem
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - evanlivingston 4y ago
    What is a stable ecosystem?
  - hadlock 4y ago
    There are no trees on the island at all, barely an ecosystem, they clear cut the island about 500 years ago and nothing has been able to reestablish in the harsh conditions. Most of the island is rock, some of it covered in lichen, some covered in a very hardy moss. It's important to be respectful of the ecosystem, but also, iceland is a barren rocky island and you need some sort of flora to bootstrap a productive ecosystem. The tree planting efforts have been necessary. Iceland's tourism marketing department is super impressive; I see a barren rocky hellscape (I've been there twice, both times as emergency layovers due to XYZ airline problems) but people who buy into the ads consider it "beautiful and otherworldly", I think, because there are no trees there besides the ones planted in the cities. The bus trip from the new airport to the capital is about 30 minutes, other than Craters of the Moon national park in idaho I don't think i've seen a more barren stretch of land, especially so close to a major population center.
    - asgeir 4y ago
      It is slightly unfair to say there's barely an ecosystem. If all you've seen is Reykjanes between Keflavík and Reykjavík then sure it might look like a bleak, moss covered, rocky desert. But the thing is that different regions can vary quite drastically in their level of vegetation. You might have farmland on one side of a mountain but on the other side a vast sandy desert. But, to be fair, if your measure of a fertile landscape is a forest then those are relatively few and far between. Personally I tend to feel a bit claustrophobic when there are trees boxing me in on all sides and I can't see the mountains. :)

woodruffw 4y ago

I think by "birch" they mean the Icelandic birch[1], which is the only tree that's actually native to Iceland. The others (Siberian larch, Alder variants) were probably previously endemic, even if they aren't "truly" native. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_pubescens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_pubescens

elevaet 4y ago
Yes that's correct re the Birch. I believe the alder was what we call Slide Alder, which is useful for holding down the soil and preventing erosion on steeper areas. Not sure which Larch it was.

mistrial9 4y ago

the science shows dramatic changes in temperatures and rainfall in the far North. Planting new tree stands certainly ought not be bound by a "pure native" perspective, in these times. While you and I split hairs, not a small amount of money is being invested in genetically engineered flora of all kinds, boasting that it is "climate change ready." A much bigger problem than "pure native" to my way of thinking.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
People get all twisted up over the idea of genetically engineered plants breaking out into the wild though. But, once we're staring down the barrel of the climate apocalypse it'd be cool to go nuts with genetically engineered plants like: Here's a giant redwood that grows 10x faster, filters particulates out of the air with its needles and is designed to extract carbon from the air as fast as possible.
- tomrod 4y ago
  I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad Caverns and other deep caves.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Might need both. Also lots of insect-based nutrient paste, made with your daily water ration (helps mask the unpleasant mineral and chlorine taste of the water so you don't dehydrate in the 40 C heat).
- mistrial9 4y ago
  designer grass in different colors; fish genes in oranges; new mammals as pets designed to sell.. people know very well that is what is going on.. pure BS to make a buck, like "fast growing things that live 600 years" .. like fake medicine, but worse because it breeds. zero confidence in MBAs and shysters making this a GMO business to "save the planet" ok - better, plants whose seeds die instead of refreshing; plants that are allegedly immune to only MY brand of poison and won't hurt anything; trees with patents.
otikik 4y ago
The fact that bugs me is that artificial selection is “fine”. If randomness produces a mutation, that’s kosher, but if man makes the change, that’s Dangerous.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Any mutation could be "dangerous." We're just used to a system that produces mutations randomly so we estimate the danger to be in the background. Targeted changes also can produce unknown side effects, which to my understand are what non-GMO folks fear. Toxicity, missing nutrients, etc. could certainly be issues with adjustments, but I don't think the right approach is to fear so much as to attack things two fold: test the biological systems outputs, and learn the biological systems outputs sufficiently to simulate impacts.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  If man was making said changes at the rate random useful mutations tend to occur in nature I don't think anyone would be concerned. And we typically do more than just tweak a genetic component in a single individual and see how it fares against existing populations - if the change suits our short term goals, we'll do everything we can to ensure that becomes the dominant variant, often destroying the genetic diversity that provides long term durability in the process.
- imtringued 4y ago
  If man makes the change he installs DRM into the GMO.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Because man like to make mistakes at scale.

wnevets 4y ago

> potential to be invasive. Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
Yes, why wouldn't it be? Any non native species can disrupt an ecosystem in any number of ways. For trees for example, they can shade or crowd out native species.
- wnevets 4y ago
  Because trees tend to grow very slowly, which should mean they should be fairly easy to control. Not to mention the useful wood if any population culling needs to occur.
  - Foobar8568 4y ago
    Typically the Japanese knotweed is considered as highly invasive and a pest in Europe. Almost impossible to get rid off due to its fast growth and deep root system.
    - wnevets 4y ago
      According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1] [1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/ https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/
      - Foobar8568 4y ago
        There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.

klyrs 4y ago

To be fair, Iceland is only about 16 million years old, and trees have been around for about 350 million years. What's native to Surtsey?

Hellion 4y ago
That’s a bit of a willful misinterpretation Native is more about replanting things into a stable ecosystem, versus non native, which can become invasive and detrimental to that ecosystem
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- evanlivingston 4y ago
  What is a stable ecosystem?
- hadlock 4y ago
  There are no trees on the island at all, barely an ecosystem, they clear cut the island about 500 years ago and nothing has been able to reestablish in the harsh conditions. Most of the island is rock, some of it covered in lichen, some covered in a very hardy moss. It's important to be respectful of the ecosystem, but also, iceland is a barren rocky island and you need some sort of flora to bootstrap a productive ecosystem. The tree planting efforts have been necessary. Iceland's tourism marketing department is super impressive; I see a barren rocky hellscape (I've been there twice, both times as emergency layovers due to XYZ airline problems) but people who buy into the ads consider it "beautiful and otherworldly", I think, because there are no trees there besides the ones planted in the cities. The bus trip from the new airport to the capital is about 30 minutes, other than Craters of the Moon national park in idaho I don't think i've seen a more barren stretch of land, especially so close to a major population center.
  - asgeir 4y ago
    It is slightly unfair to say there's barely an ecosystem. If all you've seen is Reykjanes between Keflavík and Reykjavík then sure it might look like a bleak, moss covered, rocky desert. But the thing is that different regions can vary quite drastically in their level of vegetation. You might have farmland on one side of a mountain but on the other side a vast sandy desert. But, to be fair, if your measure of a fertile landscape is a forest then those are relatively few and far between. Personally I tend to feel a bit claustrophobic when there are trees boxing me in on all sides and I can't see the mountains. :)