Náttúrufræðingurinn - 1988, Page 31

Abstracts. Seventh conference of the
Comité Arctique International, Reykja-
vík 7.-13. sept. 1986. Bls. 10.
Ingvi Þorsteinsson 1978. Gróður og land-
nýting. Lesarkir Landverdar 3. 45 bls.
Johnson, L. og K. Van Cleve 1976. Re-
vegetation in arctic and subarctic
North America. A literature review.
CRREL Report 76-15. 32 bls.
Ólafur Arnalds, Ása L. Aradóttir og Ingvi
Þorsteinsson 1987. The nature and
restoration of denuded areas in Ice-
land. Arctic and Alpine Research 19.
518-525.
Schaller, F.W. og P. Sutton (ritstj.) 1978.
Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed
Lands. American Society of Agro-
nomy, Madison. 742 bls.
Sturla Friðriksson 1960. Uppgræðsla og
ræktun afréttarlanda. Árbók landbún-
aðarins 11. 201-218.
Sturla Friðriksson 1975. Surtsey. Evolu-
tion of Life on a Volcanic Island. Butt-
erworks, London. 198 bls.
Sturla Friðriksson og Jóhann Pálsson
1970. Landgræðslutilraun á Sprengi-
sandi. íslenskar landbúnaðarrannsókn-
ir 2. 34-49
Sören Sörensen 1984. Ensk - íslensk orða-
bók. Örn og Örlygur, Reykjavík.
Woolf, H.B. (ritstj.) 1977. Websters New
Collegiate Dictionary. G.&C. Merriam
Company, Springfield.
SUMMARY
Revegetation and restoration:
terminology, objectives and
success
Ólafur Arnalds
Rannsóknastofnun landbúnaðarins
112 Keldnaholt, Reykjavík
and
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences
Texas A M University
College Station, Texas
77843-2474, U.S.A.
Iceland has suffered severe accelerated
erosion since the settlement of the coun-
try. The size of denuded areas in Iceland
is estimated at about 40,000 km2 (Ingvi
Þorsteinsson 1978). In this paper various
aspects of revegetation and restoration are
discussed, such as the terminology, goals
and success of revegetation. The different
implications of revegetation and restora-
tion are emphasized and an Icelandic term
for restoration is suggested. With refer-
ence to Icelandic conditions, the following
goals of revegetation are distinguished:
Reclamation of disturbed areas.
Aesthetic reasons.
3. Stabilization of moving sand.
4. Prevention of soil erosion.
5. Forage production.
6. Restoration of the ecology.
The importance of distinguishing between
these goals is stressed. An important rea-
son for clarifying objectives is that the
goals may dictate what revegetation tech-
niques may or may not be used. Forage
production and aesthetic values or eco-
logical restoration are objectives that may
well conflict under certain circumstances.
The success of revegetation measures
should be evalued in relation to well de-
fined objectives.
Restoration is often the ultimate goal of
revegetation. Various restoration perspec-
tives in Iceland have been reviewed (Ól-
afur Arnalds et al. 1987). Natural restora-
tion in Iceland is very slow, especially in
the highlands. Further research is needed
in order to be able to decide how best to
restore the vast acreage of denuded areas
in Iceland successfully and economically.
85