Forests Grow in Iceland 

hopefully they dont make the mistakes of monoculture-forests - they are only good for moneymaking, because they grow fast. coniferous trees should never be planted in monoculture. Best mix is about 80% Deciduous and 20% conferous trees, because coniferus trees make the soil sour and less light reaches the ground, ergo less plants and diversity in the forest.

I am not sure, though, that forests in germany or scandinavia are an example to follow. Lots of spruce and pine plantations there, rather than authentic forests mixing coniferous with broadleaf.

Thank you Joaquim Barbosa. We are indeed paying much attention. We are working under a newly set law for forests and forestry. According to the new law, a new forest policy is being laid out which is to be revised every five years. That policy covers both the conservation and expansion of the native woodlands and the growing of productive forests for commercial purposes, recreation, shelter and more. Every forestry project is prepared with careful planning carried out by professional foresters according to legislation for forests and forestry, nature conservation, protection of archaeological remains and so forth. Every project has to be in accordance with regional and municipal planning and those in charge of a project must seek permission before starting. Forestry plans must take in account various factors such as visual aspects, biodiversity and more. Planting of introduced species is not allowed in the highlands and so forth. Thus, we think we are working responsibly, taking into account both conservation measures and important things like sustainability in terms of resource management, climate issues and improved living conditions for people among other things.

Nothing wrong with a good amount of managed forests,

Planting trees and fencing 🤷‍♂️

Native Icelandic forests are birch forests and shrubs which would be called monocultures, were they planted by humans. Forestry with introduced species add to the diversity of forests in Iceland. Research done in wide cooperation of various organisations in Iceland have shown that afforestation with introduced species in Iceland does not lead to decreased biodiversity. Biodiversity is indeed an important factor which is put in heavy consideration when new forests are being planned and laid out. The main problem for vegetation in Iceland is sheep grazing. When land is fenced off for forestry in Iceland, you usually don't have to wait long until you see native birch, rowan and willows spreading into those areas. Forests in Iceland are not hacked down after a decade. They are allowed to grow at least 30-50 years before felling. In the future, the normal practise will probably be selective felling which doesn't remove the forest cover but allows for healthy regeneration of the woods. We have a rather strict legislation for forests and forestry in Iceland, so don't worry. What concerns the native woodlands you don't have to worry either. They are expanding way faster than commercial forests with introduced species. To meet the Bonn Challenge, Icelandic authorities have set the goal to expand the native birch woodlands from the current 1.5% cover to 5% by 2030.

great comparison. who doesnt know the climate of Madison WI. lol.

Because Scotland has a forest problem more than a sheep desert problem?

Below in the comments somebody asked which trees are planted. And among those are also birch trees and willows.

Good point. Monoculture is a nightmare, esp if you plant needle trees which empoverish the soil and are more and more subject to diseases (probably because their genetic material has been weakened by artificial means of growing them, among other causes). Sowing seeds from various species and ... waiting, are the only reasonable way of growing a healthy forest.

Planting decreased from around six million trees per year to around three million after the financial crisis in 2008. Now, at last, it is starting to increase again. The goal of six million planted seedlings are projected to be reached again this year. As you have seen in the video, interest is increasing substantially in forestry over here. The state has been providing more funds for afforestation of native birch forests and commercial forestry projects on farmlands. But the greatest increase lies in the augmenting need for measures to fight climate change. More and more domestic and foreign companies and individuals are contacting the Icelandic Forest Service, asking about the possibilities of initiating new afforestation projects. Experience has taught us a lot about how dense to plant for new forests in Iceland. Recommendations for plants per hectare have been lowering in recent years from around 3000 seedlings per year to about 2500. Before, trees were planted even more densely, even up to 4000 or more. Now we are recommending around 2500 trees per hectare, give and take according to the conditions, tree species and more. You will see older overly dense patches of forests here and there but those examples do not give the right image of current practices. Given that we plant six million trees a year, 2500 seedlings per hectare, the planted area each year could reach 2400 hectares.

@@landogskogur Thanks for your answer. Do you know the survival rate of the saplings that you plant?

​@@franciscoescobar3093 Unfortunately, this hasn't been sufficiently monitored in Icelandic afforestation projects as a whole. Hopefully we will get funds and workforce to improve our monitoring systems in that regard in the future. We have mainly one publication from 2008 to point out. That is a BS thesis, showing average survival rates in afforestation projects in North Iceland. The results of the review gave an average survival rate of between 65% and 75% compared to 95% tolerances.

Here is the link. Unfortunately, the thesis in only in Icelandic. skemman.is/handle/1946/4550

@@franciscoescobar3093Assuming a survival rate of 70%, this is not out of scope for density used for hand plant conifers in western Oregon and Washington States. If you watch a couple of their other RU-vid’s it is clear management is exceptionally professional; in particular they’ve taken to heed a couple lessons it took decades to learn in western North America. There no replacement for quality genetics, and strong, well grown seedlings. I don’t know about the expertise of the planters. Maybe using less bare root stock this is not as crucial. Here survival is mostly at risk from May-June drought, which then extends into our normal July-mid-September dry, or a herd of elk deciding a particular hill meets their fancy. Some of the area planted looks as bad as that planted by Weyerhaeuser after the Mount St Helens explosion. Survival and growth there was also quite challenging. Weyerhaeuser even went to placing a small shade device to get seedlings to survive the first year or two. Admirable life’s work!

The most planted tree species in Iceland is the native downy birch with a share of about one third of the total. Commercial tree species and those planted for recreational and sheltering purposes are black cottonwood, siberian larch and its hybrid with European larch, Sitka spruce and contorta pine. Several other species are used in smaller quantities. We plant the native rowan and willows but also Norway spruce, alder species, fir species such as the subalpine fir, various broadleaves for decorational and diversity purposes and more.

Actually they don't. Below, in the comments s.o. asked which trees are planted. And among those are also birch trees, willows and other species.

Oh, now i see all the comments on monocrop. I did see rows of trees in the vid but i also saw what appears to be more wild like stands of trees. I understand the concern for lack of diversity. And, this channel come ted on 30-40 year growth cycles seems optimistic. And so, if waiting so long to "harvest" then why not randomize the planting pattern.? Diversity, randomization, occasional burns, will help keep pests away. Tight monocrops can lead to infestations of destructive insects. One might argue that more trees are better than not but when the insects come i worry that it will be a waste of resources to eliminate them. I should add that i am not in the forestry business and am only bringing up issues that i have heard about elsewhere.

In terms of pathogens, our primary concern lies within our native birch woodlands, which predominantly consist of a single species, forming natural monocultures. With the advent of climate change, new pests targeting birch have emerged in Iceland, posing a significant threat. While cultivated forests may contain plots dedicated to a single species, discussions surrounding the implementation of mixed planting practices are gaining traction. However, this issue encompasses various considerations. Our planting plots are relatively small, and we strive to design our forests with multiple species. Notably, Iceland's diverse landscapes necessitate the selection of appropriate species for specific locations, resulting in a natural mix of species. Additionally, native species such as downy birch, rowan, and willow exhibit self-sowing behavior within afforestation areas, benefiting from both protection against sheep grazing and enhanced ecosystem processes. Currently, ongoing breeding initiatives are providing us with enhanced provenances of diverse tree species, encompassing both native birch and introduced species. Our focus is on identifying suitable tree species for the future, particularly those that can succeed Siberian larch in regions where warming conditions render it unsuitable. Douglas fir emerges as a promising candidate in this regard. Furthermore, discussions are underway regarding harvesting methods in Iceland. Selective logging is likely to be favored over clear-cutting in the future, although the latter may still be employed in specific instances, such as when existing species demonstrate limited potential. In essence, we are comprehensively examining every facet of this matter, encompassing both ecological and economic considerations. Striking a harmonious balance between these two aspects is of paramount importance.

Below in the comments he answers which trees are planted. And among those trees are birch trees and willows. He mentions some more trees...

Downy birch is the only native tree species forming forests or woodland in Iceland. Planting only downy birch thus leads to monocultures if you like. Forestry plans in Iceland are carried out by professionals, taking in account different aspects such as biodiversity, nature conservation, archaeological remains and more. Different from what you could assume from looking on older forest plots here and there in Iceland, new plantations are now designed to follow altitude lines, creeks and other landscape forming phenomena, instead of straight lines. However, straight lines are not totally inevitable, due to how boundaries between landowners are shaped, how fences have been set up etc. We totally deny that afforestation measures in Iceland are leading to more monocultures or loss of biodiversity. In fact, research is showing the opposite. In addition, more and more signs are emerging, indicating darkening outlook for the Icelandic downy birch. New pests have arrived and in certain places, birch trees are suffering severely and even dying. We need more tree species diversity to ensure resilience of woodlands in Iceland in time of climate crisis. One more thing is also worth considering. More or less single-species forest patches will always be part of woodland cover in any country, as some tree species have the nature of forming such forests, especially in the boreal zone. However, tree species are never totally alone. Other species tend to sow themselves into planted forests as well as native or natural ones. This is our experience in Iceland as well as elsewhere. Here it is especially the native Icelandic birch which arrives practically everywhere where land is fenced off from grazing and planted with tree seedlings. The problem in Iceland is not forests of any kind. The problem is unsustainable land use measures, especially uncontrolled sheep grazing.

@@landogskogur I would like to see a video showing the diversity you describe on a large scale. Most of what I saw was monoculture.

I would wager than in the not too distant past much sawn lumber in Iceland was imported. What’s wrong with planting some conifers in 2023 to be cut down in 2093, to provide a beam for someone’s new home just down the road from where it was planted? Is that different than growing a non-native potato for someone to eat?

@@billsmith5109 Not against it, but it is not a forest. It is a monoculture, a pine field.

@@stumpfarm3714 In Oregon or Washington I usually call it industrial forest land. A forest is what you find in Olympic National Park. In Iceland I would differentiate that if they grow a cycle of Siberian larch or lodgepole pine, they are left with more soil than they found, or more than would have been present in a business as usual case over the same sixty or eighty years. Wood is pretty handy stuff.

Typing nonsense is not useful, please desist.

@@danyoutube7491 your lack of ability to understand what's typed is no one's problem but your own.

Climate ALWAYS changes! ==================================== Climate Change = One Big Scam = One Big Lie. ==================================== But Trees are always good. Of course, they have to say the magic words "Climate Change" to get grants, just as in days of old, people kneeled and kissed the ring of their lord. Nothing changes in this primitive fear-based world - unless we each change ourselves. Evolve. / Evolved people will solve Earth's challenges. /

You just contradicted yourself. What you meant to say was that "The climate change witnessed since the start of the industrial revolution is no different to climate change that has occurred throughout the Earth's existence". Me writing it out in an intelligible form does not, of course, change the fact that it is a false statement.

@@danyoutube7491 Dan worships The New Religion. Everyone else is a dangerous heretic. How predictable. / You should be more worried about micro plastics in Earth and Water, and chemical pollution of both. And if you REALLY want to help Earth, do'nt breed, because too many people is the real problem. Strangely, since people rolled up their sleeves due to orchestrated fear about sniffles, fertility and pregnancy problems are going through the roof. /

Iceland and many more countries in Europe have been deforested. And they are also planting birch and willows, as is explained below. This is just turning back the country into its original state! Great work!

It is worth mentioning that our biggest project is the reclamation of the native Icelandic birch woodlands. However, for the sake of carbon sequestration more productive tree species are by far outweighing the native birch. So our goals are mainly twofold, to expand the native birch woodlands for the benefit of the countrie's biodiversity and land restoration and on the other hand to grow productive forests which will sequester carbon and build a sustainable timber resource for the future. You will probably be happy to learn that the native birch woodlands are expanding at a much faster rate than the productive forests. They will be way more prominent in the landscape in the future.

@@landogskogur That is good to hear (: thank you!

Pétur Halldórsson On the whole, the birch woods are faring quite well. They are now expanding at an ever faster pace mainly due to three reasons. Firstly, the downy birch is he most planted tree species in Iceland. Secondly, sheep grazing has been on decline and that development is ongoing. Areas free from grazing are expanding and multiplying. The third reason is longer summers which lead to good seed production years becoming more frequent. But on the other hand, not everything is in favor of the birch these years. New pests attacking the birch have been spreading around the country and it takes time for natural enemies to find their way over here to stabilise the system. However, one natural enemy was found recently, giving some hope. What concerns the appearence of the birch, it would be a long story to explain in detail. If you travel around Iceland you realise that the birch shows quite a different profiles , so to speak, depending on where you put your foot down. In the area of Borgarfjörður in West Iceland for example, you will see only low-growing shrubs whereas in places like Bæjarstaður Forest near Skaftafell in the south-east or in Vaglir Forest near Akureyri in the north, Hallormsstaður Forest near Egilsstaðir in the east and more, you will find real birch forests even with trees over twelve meters in height and relatively straight-growing. That different appearence of the birch can be explained by a number things affecting the growth pattern. One is the local growing conditions. For example the birch doesn't like it very much in windy areas along the coast where it is subject to salty winds. Another explanation is genetic mixing with dwarf birch (Betula nana) which leads to low and crooked growth. The clearing of the birch woods after the human settlement over 1100 years ago along with livestock grazing is thought to have stimulated the mix of the two species because as there were fewer and fewer birch trees producing seeds regularly and the grazing animals ate the new seedlings more or less up as the tried to grow, the birch had to rely more and more on root stems to regenerate. That is a trait borrowed from the dwarf birch but isn't a natural thing for the downy birch to do. Therefore, the hybrids were better adapted to the changed conditions, thus most certainly becoming more and more common at the cost of something you might call pure downy birch. Now, as the birch is seeding itself out more and more again, we notice that the new trees tend to be more straight-growing than other birch trees in the same area. This is an indication that the birch could be developing again towards more "pure" downy birch, ridding itself of the genes borrowed from the dwarf birch. We see on photos from the beginning of the twentieth century when the most important remains of Icelandic birch forests were fenced off for protection at the last minute of their survival, that they were much lower-growing then than they are today. We will probably see comparable trends elsewhere as the birch gains ground by self-seeding in more and more areas, free from sheep grazing and human over-exploitation. Maybe our descendants will see birch forests more like those the first settlers laid their eyes upon long ago. Still, there lies a great incertainty for the birch in the climate crisis. Will te climate in the Icelandic lowlands become too warm for the downy birch? That we cannot predict.

@@landogskogur Thank you for the detailed and thorough answer. You are absolutely right than in more sheltered areas as around Hallormsstaður there are indeeed taller birch trees - I should have had a proper look before deeming the icelandic birch to be all dwarf birch. Considering the grazing that is exactly the same in many parts of Western Norway, as the sheep population several places has dwindled, shrubs and dwarf/downy birch(in some areas) tend to grow and dominate in the inflicted areas. I would assume the more sheltered areas in Iceland will eventually be home to more straight and taller birch trees over time. I assume the silver birch is not native to Iceland, which usally is the one birch that thrives in more temperate climates than the downy birch. Time will show how it all develops, and as an avid outdoorsman from Norway I look forward to visit Iceland and have a close up look at it myself. Thanks again for the detailed answer Pétur!

Also squirrels and their predators.

hillbillies would suffice

cause introducing non native species has worked greatly in the past.

J' aurais peur de faire ça .... Je pense à l' Australie...😮