Hacker News Reader

Comment by BitwiseFool | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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.

I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad Caverns and other deep caves.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

If man makes the change he installs DRM into the GMO.

Because man like to make mistakes at scale.

> potential to be invasive.

Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?

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.

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.

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.

According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a tree, its a buckwheat. [1]

[1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/

There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from Asia/Japan.

I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of it.

https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th...

What is and isn't a tree is not as well defined as one would think.

Many trees grow as fast as weeds in the first few years of their life. A single tree can output thousands to millions of seeds in a year. Something can be easy to control when there's 10 of them and impossible when there's a billion of them.

Add to that some tree species can be nearly impossible to kill. Cutting them off at the ground does not work, the roots must also be dug up. Any green braches left on the ground can take root and form a new tree.

One more example, the Brazilian Pepper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_terebinthifolia

It grows quickly. I’ve never heard of its wood having any use. While you’re cutting it down, vibration causes its seeds to fall and they sprout later. And you have to burn/poison the stump or else that regrows too.

Maybe ecosystems are always being disrupted?

Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive, unpredictable, long-term costs that other humans will have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the economic benefits of the original human interference?

This is pretty basic history, with endless examples of human societies that took short-term gains by screwing with ecosystems for more complex than they could understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those costs proved so high that they wiped out the societies that came up short, when the bill came due?

Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do you know the body counts of these choices?

If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's masterwork:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert

And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo...

If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human interference in existing stable ecosystems.

Lay off skittyboo; doesn't seem like you are "honestly" trying to clarify anything.

Have you considered that you might be making a wildly inaccurate assumption that island ecology tends toward homeostasis? Does it bother you so much that someone might believe that disruption and wild fluctuation might be much more typical of ecosystems, even without the intervention of Homo sapiens sapiens?

So was your original post in bad faith, or not?

Your question has an obvious, widely accepted answer... Whether that answer is right or wrong, your failure to reference it comes off as deliberately provocative.

And by your response, it seema pretty obvious: Yes, you knew full well the answer before you sarcastically asked your orignal question.

If you ask questions in bad faith, using an argumentative tone--then why are you surprised when I respond to you in the same fashion?

If you want better replies, you should try writing a better post, in the first place.

Bad faith? You are asking whether my comment was intended to deceive? No, it was not. It was lazy, and nothing more than that.

No, you misunderstand... by "bad faith" I meant that your original comment was not intended as an earnest, respectful, positive contribution.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, under the section "In Comments" (halfway down)...

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

...

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

...

> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

Also, honestly, Jared Diamond? you can do so much better than that.

Absolutely, because the trees non-ecologists pick for rapid reforestation happen to grow aggressively and they tend to out compete the local species. They tend to pick either rapidly growing species, or particularly hardy ones. Both characteristics make removing them after introduction difficult.

Hawaii has a huge problem with this, but also California. The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even worse. There's also a horrible negative feedback loop because the Eucalyptus is adapted to recover quickly from such fires.

"It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire was due to eucalyptus.[41] In a National Park Service study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre) of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as great as native oak woodland." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire

Do you know of other species that have similar issues as Eucalyptus?

America's favorite (/s) the Bradford Pear. It is invasive and will choke/push out other species.

https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear

Amur Honeysuckle, though its sort of more of a shrub.

Buckthorn in the US is very resilient, crowds out other species of both undergrowth and trees, and is a host to a number of pests such as aphids and fungi which will then attack crops and native species.

You can't simply cut it down, it requires a nasty chemical applied to the stump, or to be completely pulled out by the roots. They grow tightly packed together, so clearing out even a small area is best done with a team of people.

It also can absolutely grow to tree size, and I’ve found areas with a lot of buckthorn have significantly more mosquitoes. Presumably they have more cover so aren’t as likely to be eaten.

If I were a billionaire I’d fund a secret program to create a disease to wipe out buckthorn. I hate what it’s done to Minnesota’s forests.

Tree of Heaven is extremely difficult to eradicate, and has spread throughout Boulder over the last few years.

https://arapahoe.extension.colostate.edu/2021/09/05/tree-fro...

it’s not a tree but kudzu is a pretty famous example. it was imported from japan (i believe —may be mistaken on that point) into the American Deep South for erosion control, it quickly grew in the warm, wet environs and now literally smothers nearly all native vegetation. Its incredibly invasive and difficult to eradicate.

Exact same story on the west coast with iceplant: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Dont-Plant-Me/Ic.... It dominates the Californian coastline now and probably always will.

The North American Black Locust tree, a continental native tree, of the legume family, is considered invasive within North America, in New York and Connecticut and Massachusetts and the rest of New England, mid-west prairie areas, and the west of the continent.

Its original range, before European arrival, is believed to be in Appalachian Mountains, Pennsylvania to Georgia, and the Ozarks.

  It has been used as a pioneer species to restore treeless land in other continents, including Europe, Asia and Africa and Australia. Spain has used them to restart forest in desertified areas, for example.

- Black Locust (Robinia_pseudoacacia) -- Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinia_pseudoacacia

- Black Locust -- New York PRISM https://www.wnyprism.org/invasive_species/black-locust/

- Black Locust -- Massachusetts Audubon Society https://www.massaudubon.org/learn/nature-wildlife/invasive-p...

- Rethinking Black Locust -- by Maureen Sundberg April 15, 2019 Ecological Lanscape Alliance https://www.ecolandscaping.org/04/landscape-challenges/invas...

Note that reforestation up here is a different game than in places like California (read: "warmer locations more amicable to life"). Species that survive here mostly already existed and trees grow very, very slowly. For the most part, we'll welcome anything that will survive, and turns out (big surprise) that our existing species are the best at surviving here. An exception (as in, a newly introduced potentially invasive species) is the Californian Poplar, which was imported in the 40s, but that isn't really used much for reforestation anymore.

There are notable examples of invasive species in the non-tree category though, the Lupine probably being the most controversial. It's been used to reclaim and create soil in sandy areas and in only a few decades since being imported, the blue of the flowering lupine absolutely dominates some areas. I think it's pretty, but it's aggressive as all hell.

Good example. Eucalyptus is bad

Pinus is worse

I've been watching way too much Beavis and Butthead.

> The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even worse.

I watched the eucalyptus stands burning in the Oakland Hills fire. They go up like torches. I've never understood the rationale for keeping them. Owls really like them though.

> Owls really like them though.

There's your rationale. Owls are cool.

Much as I dislike Eucalyptus trees, every owl calling from a Eucalyptus is a vote to keep them.

I don't think there's much of a rationale; nobody I knew in CA liked eucalyptus trees, they just are everywhere. I had heard they wanted to make railroad ties from them.

Correct on the railroad ties. Well until they realised how long they take to grow properly so it didnt work out.

https://www.independent.com/2011/01/15/how-eucalyptus-came-c...

I really, I mean really, really like the slender ones with the almost white bark, and the limbs that branch off with the skin-like wrinkles on their undersides. The trunks and lower limbs remind me of the human form. And I like the broccoli-like crests of leaves, that while poor at providing shade, are just so doggone stylish.

There are other Eucalyptus trees that are massive and perhaps less attractive, that I still find awe inspiring because of their massive size.

I did not know that they were such a problem in wildfires, despite being born in and living nearly the whole of my life in Southern California. You learn something every day.

Monarch butterflies in California need eucalyptus trees for their winter roost

https://milliontrees.me/2013/11/01/monarch-butterflies-in-ca...

How, I mean, eucalyptus is not native to California? Did they recently adapt?

It does say in the article that 20% nest in the pine and 16% in cypress trees.

> His theory is that the agricultural practices of early settlers, which cleared trees, created a population explosion of the milkweed that is the host plant of monarchs. More milkweeds resulted in more monarchs and monarchs began to migrate in response to population pressure, he believes.

So it sounds like it was all pine in that area, deforestation created an environment for monarchs, and they moved in. Monarchs are not native to the area, so I'm not sure that they can be used as a defence to keep all the eucalyptus.

Oh my god yes. I'm battling (and probably losing the fight) the dreaded Box Elder Maple. The thing grows like a weed and if you cut it down, it just grows back even larger. You either need to cut it down to a stump (and likely grind the stump to nothing), or cut it and poison what's left so it dies for good.

Fkn hate those trees and the bugs they host!

Invasive in Europe. Native to eastern North America. You can also make syrup from the sap, though you need a lot more sap than sugar maple.

Absolutely. I've got one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima in the back yard that I need to take a saw (and likely more drastic measures) to.

In the mountain west, the Chinese Elm has exploded. In my neighborhood, 95% of the trees that grew naturally (i.e. they are established, and a human didn't plant them), are Chinese Elm. If it weren't for homeowners planting alternates, I suspect it would be Cottonwood's along the canals, and Chinese Elms everywhere else. Those things spring up everywhere, even cracks of sidewalk where there's no dirt! And their roots go aggressive and deep, and are very hard to get rid of once established.

There's at least debate about whether Chinese pistache (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis) should be considered invasive in Texas.

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?

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

What is a stable ecosystem?

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.

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. :)

We still have one original forest here from pre-settlement in the East called Hallormsstaðaskógur, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallormssta%C3%B0ask%C3%B3gur.

However yes the ride from KEF to RVK is particularly barren looking.

It sounds like you have never actually visited Iceland as a tourist or resident intentionally. It’s a beautiful place, perhaps not best judged on emergency layovers.

I've seen the entire portion of the island visible from the ring road. It is absolutely beautiful and otherworldly... if you count the spectacular waterfalls and fjordlands as "beautiful" and the barren wastes of Mars and Venus as "otherworldly." If you're particularly inebriated you might see miles and miles of sheep, with no humans in sight, as "alien." If you're from New Zealand this might not be novel, but I'm not.

There's nothing quite like hiking for miles before looking down and realizing that you've been walking on a dense two-dimensional mat of berry bushes and spiral-shaped alder trees. It's quite possible that you saw trees but did not recognize them as such -- from a distance, this "flat forest" looks a lot like moss. Not much can survive annual meters-deep snows, which is one of the reasons I'm uncharacteristically flippant about invasive species (the other reason being the sheep population).

"nothing has been able to reestablish in the harsh conditions"

AFAIK the main factor in those "harsh conditions" is sheep farming. Sheep on Iceland are kept pretty much without any fences. They will eat saplings and small tees. There is an amazing photo somewhere of a little island in a river that's in essence covered in forest. Everything around it is mostly moss as you call out.

Another factor, especially on the Rejkyanes peninsula towards the airport is that this is also a very young part of the island. It's mostly still lava rock. This isn't representative of other parts of Iceland.

Source: visited 5 times and travelled the island extensively.=

Reply on news.ycombinator.com