Nootka Lupin in Iceland and the Complex Politics of Invasive Life by Karl Benediktsson Floral Hazards

Benediktsson GAB201307-3final2_e (OBS nytt nr) GAB201312-3 OBS Sid-hänvisningar i detta nummer OK

FLORAL HAZARDS

floral hazards: Nootka lupin in Iceland and the complex politics of invasive life by Karl Benediktsson Floral hazards

BENEDIKTSSON, K. (2015): ‘Floral hazards: Nootka lupin in scientists often posit themselves as the “natural” ar- Iceland and the complex politics of invasive life’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 97 (2): 139–154. biters in such debates, by virtue of their allegedly objective knowledge of the processes at work (Lach ABSTRACT. Once established in new spaces, exotic plants not et al. 2003; Likens 2010). But such arbitration can only impact the “native” biota, but also affect environmental poli- be easier to achieve in theory than in practice. Not tics in often complex ways. This article looks into one instance of such politics: that of the Nootka lupin (Lupinus nootkatensis), a only do the findings and recommendations of natu- leguminous plant of North American origin. Imported to Iceland ral scientists sometimes go against prevailing sen- in 1945 to stem soil degradation and recover vegetation, it soon timents in society, but different groups of scientists became firmly established in Icelandic landscapes. Its spreading may come to very different conclusions, based on was actively assisted by human actors as part of fulfilling a moral duty to heal a land scarred by unsustainable past land use prac- their differing value systems and disciplinary cul- tices. Changing perspectives in environmental management have tures (Sarewitz 2004). Hager and McCoy (1998) brought about a radical reversal in the lupin’s status. It is now seen warn that simply assuming, without careful scien- by many as a “floral hazard”, and has been declared an “invasive tific testing, that introduced species have negative alien species” by the Ministry for the Environment. New lines of defence are being established to curb its spread into the deserts of ecological effects may undermine the credibility of the central highlands. A polarized debate has ensued about the pol- natural science in the eyes of the public. In addition, itics of invasive life. Increased research by natural scientists has a more fundamental dilemma may preclude an un- not led to any resolution. It is argued that such seemingly intracta- equivocal settlement of such disputes on the basis ble controversies cannot be resolved unless close attention is paid to the historical construction of values and moralities underwriting of scientific facts, namely the uncertainties – eco- the production of the discursive communities involved. Conditions logical, social and ethical – that are increasingly of radical uncertainty with the advent of the Anthropocene further acknowledged as part and parcel of environmen- complicate the politics of invasive life. tal management (Francis and Goodman 2010). For Keywords: invasive alien species, Lupinus nootkatensis, environ- instance, as Bingham and Hinchliffe (2008, p. 83) mental politics, nationalism, discourse, Iceland observe:

Nature […] no longer offers a stable category to Introduction which objects can be intuitively allocated […] It Just as in other kinds of political tussles, many is- is neither a source of smooth facts which seem sues in environmental politics frequently seem to to speak for themselves […] nor an unchanging solidify in public debate into diametrically opposed ground on which one might rely. positions from where it appears difficult to move towards any resolution. This is certainly common in During the first weeks of 2011, one episode in a tus- disputes about invasive life – species that are con- sle of the sort outlined above took place on the pages sidered “out of place”. Such issues have become of Icelandic newspapers. It centred on an introduced more and more prominent: with rapid environmen- plant that has become ubiquitous in Iceland in recent tal changes and the phenomenal growth of transpor- decades: Lupinus nootkatensis, or the Nootka lupin tation in a globalized economy, the spatial mobility (Fig. 1). The reason was a proposal for a new legal of organisms is greater than probably ever before. framework for nature conservation by the Ministry We all now live in what Larson (2005) aptly terms for the Environment. The draft legislation included recombinant ecosystems. some firm measures to combat “invasive alien spe- The polarized moral politics of invasive life cies”, for the first time in Icelandic law. Prior to the point to strong emotions and deeply held societal drafting of the bill, a special working group had values at stake, influenced by particular histori- produced a report (NÍ and LR 2010) that outlined cal contexts as well as general ideologies. Natural some urgent and quite drastic measures to curtail the

Figure 1. Lupin near Skaftafell National Park, Southeast Iceland. Photo by Martin Nouza. spread of two invasive alien plants, namely Lupinus as people from other backgrounds. They put their nootkatensis and Anthriscus sylvestris (cow pars- case in strong language, to put it mildly. As common ley). In the lupin case, this represented a complete in such disputes, accusations of xenophobia and rac- turnaround: a few years before the plant had ac- ism were brandied. In one particularly vituperative tively and enthusiastically spread by agencies of the letter to the editor, the author – a forest scientist – state, companies and organizations, and the general poured scorn on ecologists and botanists by com- public. It was now to become an officially declared paring their views about how to deal with invasive planta non grata. aliens to the genocidal atrocities of the Third Reich No plant seems capable of stirring up such emo- (Gunnarsson 2011). It seemed that a complete dead- tions among Icelanders as this legume. It has been lock had been reached. lauded for its soil-improving qualities and loved This article presents an analysis of the history of for its bright blue flowers, but more recently also the lupin debate in Iceland. I will investigate how the loathed for its proclivity to take over completely in plant has played a part in the splitting of Icelandic areas where it has become established. Two groups society into two opposing camps when it comes to were most prominent in the 2011 media skirmish. environmental management. I am especially inter- One, consisting of ecologists, applauded the new ested in the way in which ideas of nation and nation- proposal and argued unequivocally for controlling ality have been woven into both the language and the invasive aliens such as the lupin (Jónsdóttir et al. practices associated with the lupin – on both sides of 2011). They spoke with urgency about the need the debate. How is it possible to arrive at so differ- to use all methods available for eradication. The ent answers to the question as to what constitutes other group articulated a completely opposite view “good ecological citizenship” (cf. Barker 2010)? (Sigurgeirsson et al. 2011). It included a good many Does the discursive construction of species as inva- forest scientists and professional gardeners, as well sive and alien help or hinder the formation of ethical

140 © The author 2015 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography FLORAL HAZARDS and responsible nature politics in the long run? What the relations between power and knowledge’ (Sharp role does natural science play in these politics? and Richardson 2001, p. 195). I find the latter two Some answers will be sought to these questions. I ar- conceptualizations – discourses as frames and as so- gue that analyses of invasive life need to be more at- cial practices – especially useful. The analysis in this tentive to the historically conditioned and fractured article makes use of (written) texts only, as manifes- nature of the groups involved than often has been the tations of wider discourses that in this case have cer- case. Broad-brush categories of assumed stakehold- tainly involved particular framings, practices and ers – such as “the public”, “the scientists/experts” or power struggles. Print media texts provide a good “the policy makers” – are not sufficient. In particu- window onto how the lupin debate has evolved. lar, I want to draw attention to the fact that natural To establish the contours of the debate, a sys- scientists also come into environmental politics with tematic search was made in the bibliographic da- widely differing “structures of thought” (Buijs and tabase tímarit.is, which contains page-wise scans Elands 2013) just like members of the general pub- of most newspapers and periodicals published in lic. Such structures can best be understood by exam- Iceland since the nineteenth century. All Icelandic ining their historical development. newspapers are found in this database as well as a Following a note on methodology just after this great many magazines and journals. A search in the introduction, a short review of writings by social database simply returns each page where the search scientists about invasive alien species will be pre- term is found. Further analysis requires careful scru- sented. The story of lupin in Iceland is then told in tiny of the individual pages found. a largely linear manner. The historical conditions The main search term used was lúpína, includ- preceding the lupin’s arrival in the country will be ing inflected forms. The search period was 1850– briefly clarified.T he paramount emphasis put in the 2012. Also the search terms Lupinus and úlfabaun twentieth century on revegetation and forestry will were used, the former being the plant’s botanical then be discussed, followed by an analysis of the name and the latter an Icelandic translation of it, controversy that has arisen in the last quarter cen- suggested early on as a local name for the plant. The tury. This is done by showing in some detail how the search yielded some 97 occurrences of Lupinus, the plant has been discussed in Icelandic media since its first mention of which is from 1886. Only 15 hits introduction. I then trace the emergence of groups were identified forúlfabaun , which has not become that have coalesced around the opposite viewpoints. established in the language – despite the general The example as a whole, I contend, may enhance Icelandic penchant for translating “alien” concepts. our understanding of why such controversies about But the word lúpína, in its various declensions, was invasive life often become so intractable – a theme found in 1558 pages in the database. While the thrust taken up in the conclusion. of the analysis is qualitative, the high overall number and the temporal distribution of the pages found indicate the intensity of the debate, especially since On method the late 1980s (Fig. 2). The method employed here is a form of discourse This extensive material was first scanned to get analysis. Arts and Buizer (2009) identify four main an overview. Selected writings were then picked out meanings of the concept discourse, which partly for closer analysis, including various news items as overlap: communication; texts; frames; and social well as letters from readers. In the analysis, atten- practices. Discourse as communication refers to al- tion is paid to the basic perspectives embedded in most any exchange of views by whatever means, the use of certain concepts and strands of reasoning, whereas the textual approach pays particular atten- and the way in which this discourse has not only led tion to language and its interpretation. Discourse can to the formation and reinforcement of certain social also be seen as a frame that is shared by certain social groups, but also been implicated in tangible material groups, and which shapes how individuals express changes to landscapes and ecosystems (cf. Qvenild themselves and act, for instance in the context of pol- 2014). Letters to the main national newspapers were icy formation (Arts and Buizer 2009). Finally, the found to be an especially rich source of information. conception of discourse as social practices refers to a For a long time, such letters were an important part Foucauldian approach, where discourse is seen as ‘a of public debates in Iceland. With the recent advent complex entity that extends into the realms of ideol- of electronic media, the importance of newspapers ogy, strategy, language and practice, and is shaped by for such discussion has diminished, however. Blogs,

Figure 2. The varying intensity of the lupin debate in the printed media since 1945. Note: intensity is indicated by the number of pages where lupin is mentioned in the database timarit.is, as per author’s search for the period 1945–2012. Further explanation in the text. news-site commentaries and Facebook groups have (2004) suggests that it is more appropriate to talk of brought their own discursive dynamics, which were invasive “sociobiological networks” rather than fo- also briefly examined in relation to the lupin debate. cusing on individual invasive species per se. The social sciences and humanities have studied biological invasions from a variety of perspectives. Alien invasions in social territories Historical scholarship has described the processes Following Charles Elton’s pioneering work in the of introduction of new species to new areas, not least 1950s (Richardson and Pyšek 2008), invasion ecol- species introduced for utilitarian purposes (Crosby ogy (or invasion biology) has emerged as a vigorous 1986; Kull and Rangan 2008). Histories of concern subfield of biology. While the processes studied are with particular organisms have been traced (e.g. biological, the issues at the centre of these concerns Bailey 2011). Attention has also been paid to the are profoundly human, however, as McNeely (2011) social and cultural formation of attitudes and pub- points out. Biological invasions are usually brought lic perception of introduced species, as well as of about by humans having intentionally or uninten- the methods used to manage them (Starfinger et al. tionally transported the invading organism; they 2003; Gobster 2011). Similarities and differences tend to happen in habitats altered by humans; and between the general public and environmental man- the very definition of an invasive alien species of agement experts have been identified (Buijs and course implies a human judgement, as does the so- Elands 2013; Fischer et al. 2014). Finally, the mean- cial response devised to deal with it. In recognition ing of concepts such as native and alien, with their of this entanglement with the social world, Robbins implied geographies, has been subjected to intense

142 © The author 2015 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography FLORAL HAZARDS critical scrutiny (Warren 2007). Seen from a social a beetle as a biocontrol agent, which brings further constructionist angle, these and related concepts that ecological complications (Hultine et al. 2010). Also, form the core of invasion ecology are beset by se- looking at the history of black cherry (Prunus sero- vere problems of spatial and temporal demarcation. tina) in central Europe, Starfingeret al. (2003) iden- In addition, the frequent complaint by social scien- tify many competing storylines that have influenced tists of inherent xenophobia has become a source of attitudes towards the plant and led to different man- considerable irritation among ecologists (Simberloff agement policies at different times. Changing views 2003; Richardson and Ricciardi 2013). of Australian acacias (Acacia spp.) in South Africa Of particular interest is the recent move in human have been analysed in similar ways (Carruthers et al. geography and related fields towards a “more-than- 2011). In all these examples (see also other articles human” approach (Whatmore 2006) or “multinat- in this issue, esp. Ernwein and Fall 2015; Førde and uralism” (Bingham and Hinchliffe 2008; Lorimer Magnussen 2015; Head and Atchison 2015), cer- 2012). Influenced for instance by the flat ontology tain parallels can be seen with the history of lupin in of Latour’s actor-network theory (Latour 2005) and Iceland, as will be shown. We will next look at the the concept of hybridity (Whatmore 2002), such ap- particular historical context that frames much of the proaches explicitly reject the dualistic separation of lupin politics, and which to a large extent may ex- humans from nature. Non-human organisms of all plain their current viciousness. kinds are seen as co-creators – with humans, and even with non-organic things – of worlds that are forever under construction, as it were. This radically The sorry saga of Iceland’s vegetation alters any account of species that cross boundaries While fond of presenting their country as the epit- and/or become invasive. It also gives us a lot to think ome of wilderness – of nature untouched by human about regarding the politics of invasive life, bring- interference, Icelanders themselves are very much ing to attention the interspecies interactions that take aware that this is actually a complete myth. The place (Robbins 2004). story of land degradation has been told numerous For comparison with the Icelandic case, some times (e.g. A. Arnalds 1987; Ó. Arnalds et al. 2001), previous analyses of the formation of public senti- but a brief summary is appropriate here. It is a well ment and of the radical reversals that have occurred established fact that soon after the settlement of the in prevailing sentiments towards particular species island in the ninth century ad, a process of intense warrant special attention. Thus Alderman (2004) pro- ecological change started. The settlers brought with vides a fascinating account of the role of Channing them plants and animals previously absent. A sub- Cope, a prominent media personality, in promoting sistence economy based on extensive grazing de- kudzu (Pueraria spp.) in the south-eastern US dur- veloped. The birch woodlands rapidly diminished, ing the first half of the twentieth century. Using a making way for pastures. However, grazing pres- variety of morally forceful metaphors in his claims, sures were beyond carrying capacity in many areas Cope’s ceaseless advocacy for the kudzu had sub- (Ó. Arnalds and Barkarson 2003). Deforestation, in stantial impact on attitudes towards this introduced large part for firewood and charcoal-making, also plant. This contributed to its spreading throughout continued until the twentieth century. The volcanic the region for purposes of farming as well as erosion soils being easily eroded, extensive soil erosion was control, with the active backing of public agencies. the inevitable result. Cool climate during the Little The positive sentiment gave way later, however, Ice Age (from the sixteenth to the nineteenth cen- with kudzu eventually declared a noxious weed in tury) did not help. In some areas, catastrophic sand- the US (Forseth and Innis 2004) and subjected to storms also decimated a number of farms. a host of eradication measures, including spraying With some notable exceptions (cf. Crofts 2011), with broad-spectrum weed killers. The history of this sad state of affairs seems to have been met by tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) in the US is somewhat sim- and large with resignation. But with increased re- ilar. In this case, the scientific community has been search the scale of the problem became clear. In the instrumental in the forming of negative attitudes early twentieth century most of the original birch towards the species, which was originally intro- woodland had been lost and only some 25 per cent duced for soil conservation purposes (Chew 2009; of the country were fully vegetated (A. Arnalds Stromberg et al. 2009). Methods for controlling the 1987). Moreover, acknowledgement grew of the spread of tamarisk have included the introduction of fact that the degradation was not solely, and not even

© The author 2015 143 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography KARL BENEDIKTSSON primarily, caused by nature itself (i.e. volcanism and The intertwining of nationalism and nature is harsh climate); it had in large part been brought reflected in the establishment of aL and Restoration about by humans through unsustainable land man- Fund (Landgræðslusjóður) when Iceland became a agement practices through the ages. republic in 1944. Revegetation was declared a mat- The significance of all this dawned on the na- ter of urgency for the citizens of the new republic. tion, resulting in the establishment of the Soil Again in 1974, when Icelanders celebrated a thou- Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI, or sand years of settlement in the country, a sizeable Landgræðsla ríkisins in Icelandic) in 1907 (Crofts fund called The Nation’s Gift (Þjóðargjöfin) was 2011). This agency took on what seemed a Sisyphean set up for financing forestry as well as land resto- task, but early successes in halting further soil loss in ration projects. In 1990, a nationwide programme the southern lowlands proved that it was indeed pos- of forestry for land restoration was launched, giv- sible to do something about this. The plant species ing a further boost to these activities. Also it is that proved most effective for stopping drifting sand worth mentioning that during her time in office was indigenous lyme grass (Leymus arenaria). (1980–1996), the President of Iceland, Ms Vigdís Also during the late nineteenth and early twen- Finnbogadóttir, made a strong association between tieth centuries, ideologies of the Enlightenment her role as the head of the nation and the tasks of and the Romantic movement in Europe, coupled land restoration and forestry: symbolic tree plant- with growing nationalism and a drive for independ- ing (albeit not of alien conifers, but native birch) ence from Denmark, changed the way in which became a standard part of her schedule when vis- Icelanders thought about the nature of their coun- iting the various communities around Iceland. All try (Árnason 2005). Romantic poets praised the pas- in all, as the twentieth century progressed, support- toral beauty of the countryside, while also mindful ing or personally taking part in land restoration ac- of the harsh and sublime character of its landscapes tivities came to be seen as a moral duty of every and climate. Along with awareness of a separate lan- patriotic Icelander. The enormous “emotional in- guage and pride in a “golden” past of great literary vestment” in a national(ist) discourse of forestry is achievements, the allegedly special characteristics especially noteworthy. of Icelandic nature became a focal point in Icelandic nationalism and struggle for independence. These ideologies carried within them an implicit tension The introduction of the Alaskan lupin between preservation and progress, which has sur- Lupins were first brought to Iceland in the late faced most clearly in the long-winded discourse nineteenth century (Magnússon et al. 2003), a pe- about hydropower development (Karlsdóttir 2010). riod of active experimentation with the importa- At about the same time as the establishment of tion of novel trees and other plants. Several species SCSI, the first attempts at planting imported species were tried out, mainly for the purposes of ornamen- of conifers – pines and spruces mainly – were be- tal gardening. Lupinus nootkatensis was among the ing gingerly made (Blöndal and Gunnarsson 1999). species first tried (Schierbeck 1886), but it did not At first, forestry and soil conservation were seen receive much attention – and did not escape into the as two sides of the same coin, but in 1908 a sepa- barren, rocky hills at the back of Reykjavík. rate agency was created – Iceland Forestry Service Following these first experiments, the nitrogen (hereafter IFS, Skógrækt ríkisins). Ironically, most fixation capacity of lupins aroused some interest of the initial tree plantings were undertaken within and trials were set up for assessing their potential the few remaining patches of native birch – areas for maintaining soil fertility. Several different spe- where the vegetation resembled the supposedly cies were tested, the Nootka lupin apparently among original state prior to “the Fall” of the first settle- these (Helgason 1911).1 The results of these exper- ment, and where land degradation was not an acute iments varied, but they were apparently not alto- problem. Forestry became at least as much preoc- gether convincing. With artificial nitrogen fertilizer cupied with the production of wood as with halting becoming widely available in the 1920s, the interest erosion. The activities of IFS were in fact no less in- for incorporating lupins into local farming systems tertwined with nationalistic sentiments than those of waned. On the other hand, advertisements in news- SCSI: planting forests for eventual timber produc- papers from approximately 1910 onwards indicate tion was seen as contributing to the country‘s pro- that they had become a part of the home gardening ject of independence. scene, then at an incipient stage.

All this was to change in 1945 when the then di- a beautiful plant from Alaska has colonised the rector of IFS, Hákon Bjarnason, went on a plant col- land and provided the stony sand plain with life lecting trip to College Fjord, Alaska. He came back and colours. (G. Þ. 1954, p. 8) with some new species of trees as well as two spoon- fuls of seeds from Lupinus nootkatensis and a small Until the Nootka lupin was (re)introduced in 1945, piece of rootstock. He had realized its role as a pio- there were only sporadic references to lupins in the neering plant in its native habitat, where it mostly oc- printed media. This soon changed. Apart from the cupied a 3–4 m wide strip right at the forest’s edge, writings of foresters, journalists started to show close to the seashore (Bjarnason 1952). Back in interest in the plant and its remarkable abilities to Iceland, the seeds and roots were planted in a then- thrive on totally barren ground. However, as Figure unvegetated outwash plain in the central south. 2 clearly shows, the lupin debate really took off in It did not take long for the Nootka lupin to estab- the printed media in the 1980s and peaked in the lish itself in its new habitat. Over the next few years, mid-1990s. This coincided with growing concerns Hákon Bjarnason worked actively to raise aware- by conservationists and ecologists about the plant’s ness of this apparent wonderplant by fellow forest- invasive traits. ers and the general public, with unswerving faith in Several distinct themes or lines of argumentation its usefulness as an aid in both revegetation and for- can be identified in the discourse. Roughly speak- estry. He wrote a number of articles for the newspa- ing, these can be divided into pro- and anti-lupin ar- pers, and in interviews he never failed to mention guments, with several distinct and often interlinked the unique qualities of the lupin. No worries about themes prominent in each category (Fig. 3). An ex- the plant’s preponderance to spread were present; amination of these themes reveals much about the indeed, this was precisely its appeal. He made much evolution of the debate. of the limited diversity of the Icelandic flora – which For the first 40 years after the introduction of the has relatively few vascular plant species compared Nootka lupin for land restoration purposes, it seems with similar environments elsewhere (Kristinsson that anti-lupin arguments were very rare, whereas a 2010) – and concomitantly stressed the need to en- cluster of pro-lupin arguments is identifiable, usu- rich it with whatever imported species that might ally with utilitarian reasoning in the background. grow in the country, to strengthen the foundations One of these is the “negative” argument referred to for productive use of the land (Hákon Bjarnason, above, about the general poverty of the Icelandic quoted in Morgunblaðið 1955, p. 9): flora and the moral duty to increase its diversity. But it was the physiological properties of the The more diverse a country’s flora, the easier it plant itself and its ability to thrive in denuded ar- is for the inhabitants of that country to survive. eas which fascinated the proponents. This became When we look at the rough and barren areas of clear soon after the first plantings, as the quote at the this country, and consider the miserable poverty beginning of this section testifies. Soon more evi- of its flora, we must feel a deep sorrow because dence came in from other areas which were under of the poor state of the land and the difficulties the custody of IFS, such as Vaglaskógur in North in using it. Iceland, one of the most vigorous remaining birch forests. The lupin was introduced there in 1965 to Nearly all of his contemporaries agreed to this diag- close some open cuttings alongside roads in the re- nosis, and to the remedies suggested. The lupin was serve (Blöndal 1971). Contrary to concerns that the one of many species that were tried. But the pros- plant had little value for grazing due to its toxic- elytizing of Bjarnason and others who shared his ity, the article stated that it had ‘only one enemy: enthusiasm about exotic plant species would even- the sheep, who think it is particularly good to eat’ tually give way to a more complex discourse. (Blöndal 1971, p. 5). Adjoining Vaglaskógur was the area Hálsmelar, previously forested but subject to very severe deg- The explosive growth of the lupin – and the radation. Some rather unsuccessful attempts were lupin debate made at revegetation by grass seeding and fertiliz- At Þveráraurar2 […] a remarkable story is un- ing. The lupin changed this soon after its introduc- folding, which will perhaps have great signif- tion. Hálsmelar became a popular place to showcase icance for the history of Icelandic flora. There the plant’s capacities to turn stony deserts into green

Figure 3. Clusters of arguments for and against the lupin. Source: based on author’s analysis of texts from the timarit.is database. fields. Once again, Hákon Bjarnason (1983, p. 30) established for this purpose was started in 1987 (A. articulates, this time about the benign influence of B. S. 1987). This greatly increased the possibilities the lupin on other species: ‘Many plant species grow for using the plant for land restoration purposes. The under the cover of the lupin, invisible while the lu- lupin seed harvesting was so successful that in 1993, pin provides cover, but if it is mown […] the ground SCSI was able to export some of its seed – and to emerges wholly green from underneath’. Alaska at that (Lögberg–Heimskringla 1993), which The nitrogen-fixing abilities of the lupin are was very good indeed for the purposes of public re- nearly always mentioned in the pro-lupin articles. lations: this was like selling the proverbial sand to These characteristics were well recognized in the Sahara. Lupins are often used as garden plants. The early twentieth century, as discussed previously, but beauty of the Nootka lupin’s flowers is often men- they take on an increased importance in the post-war tioned by those who write in the papers about its pos- discourse. Since the late 1980s, a very common met- itive qualities, but usually more in passing than being aphor used to describe the plant’s virtues is that of the a major part of the reasoning. Thus, a mention is made “fertilizer factory”, highlighting the self-sufficiency in 1963 of its “decorative” value for the hills around of the lupin in contrast to grass species that were also Reykjavík previously (Morgunblaðið 1963, p. 1): used for restoration. This blends into economic con- siderations, which have also very much been part of This summer, lupin seed was aerially sown for the pro-lupin battery of arguments. Understandably the first time in this country. It was sown in the so: given the extent of Iceland’s land degradation wind-denuded rocky hills of Heiðmörk […] The problem, turning things around with means such as lupin now expands on its own accord and deco- aerial fertilizing and seeding of grasses had seemed rates many of the hills that were totally devoid much too costly to be practical. The lupin seemed to of vegetation. offer a much more economical way to do this. This strand of economic reasoning in the pro-lupin argu- The lupin was clearly seen as a pioneer plant. Its as- ments was present from the first writings, but it got sociation with forestry was clear in the beginning. more room in the late 1970s as Icelanders were dis- It was not thought of as an end in itself, but sup- cussing how to make the most of the money allo- posed to create conditions for trees to thrive. When cated in 1974 to forestry and land restoration. it started to be used more extensively for land resto- Economics of scale were also important. SCSI ration (as opposed to forestry), the expectation was started to investigate large-scale seed production. that it would soon make room for other plants in a Mechanized harvesting of lupin seeds from fields natural succession, leaving behind a nitrogen-rich

146 © The author 2015 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography FLORAL HAZARDS soil. Also it was expected to improve the conditions […] grows six times faster than the birch […] for birdlife. What sane person would deal with a merchant Gradually therefore, from the 1940s to the 1990s whose prices were six times higher than those the lupin became both popular and pervasive in any of the next merchant? Must we not conduct our talk about restoration and/or forestry. As this project business with Mother Nature as economically as gained momentum, with its implicit and often explicit possible? association of nature with nationalism, planting lupin and conifers became for many Icelanders a tangible This is rather straightforward utilitarian reasoning, way to display their care for their own country. In the with human–nature relations conceptualized as a 1970s and 1980s, more or less everyone was enrolled simple economic relationship and those who had in the project. Local land restoration societies were aired a contrary opinion about forestry in Iceland formed. Boy scout groups lent a hand and sowed lu- brushed off as irrational. Hákon then continues pins (and planted trees) in some areas. In Heiðmörk (Bjarnason 1968, p. 5): – a forestry and recreational reserve just outside Reykjavík – planting days were held, with municipal And why should we not use lupin from Alaska buses used to transport volunteers from the city. for areas where the topsoil has been total- The epitome came perhaps in 1990, when SÁÁ ly lost, where it is so difficult for Icelandic – a national NGO that runs a treatment centre for al- plants to spread that it takes them decades to coholics and drug addicts – teamed up with SCSI re-establishing the vegetation cover? The lupin in a campaign to raise awareness for both causes spreads rapidly on its own accord, accumulates (Þjóðviljinn 1990). Through the campaign, SÁÁ also nitrogen and forms fertile soil in a few years. At raised funds for their task – an equally Sisyphean task least it saves us the use of expensive fertilizer. perhaps as that of revegetating Iceland. Volunteers The import of such species as these two shows went door-to-door and sold a little elf-like figure with clearly that if Icelanders want any sense in their a tall conical hat, under which two small seeds were cultivation, this is the path to follow. Fantasies to be found in plastic bags; one birch seed and one lu- about imagined beauty and the virginal state of pin seed. ‘Healing the land’ – a phrase much used by Icelandic nature must give way to common sense. SCSI3 – was thus explicitly linked to the reparation of the personal damage done by drugs and alcohol. ‘Common sense’ was thus pitted against misguided These were two noble causes that nobody could seri- nationalism and romanticism. Already in 1968, ously question: possible subject positions had seem- therefore, signs of the extremely polarized dis- ingly been firmly defined in and by the discourse. course about the lupin later were evident. The first direct evidence in newspapers of scepticism towards the Nootka lupin is found in the late 1970s. For in- From wonderplant to invader stance, in a gardening column in Morgunblaðið in It seems, however, that some sceptics were pre- 1977 the author discusses the value of lupins – other sent all along. Already around 1960 objections than L. nootkatensis – as garden plants, but strongly were raised to the widespread planting of conifers warns readers of planting the Alaskan species in ar- (Guðmundsson 1960; Sæmundsson 1961). Such eas where it could take over native vegetation (Ó. concerns gradually gained ground and were ex- B. G. 1977). In the late 1980s new voices and types tended to include the lupin. In 1968, the director of of reasoning appear in the printed media, articulated IFS, Hákon Bjarnason (1968, p. 5), found himself by a new generation of people with expertise in na- having to defend the policy he had been instrumen- ture conservation and protected areas management. tal in formulating: In 1989 a ranger who had worked at two national parks puts the case for an approach to nature that is A few men have recently expressed the opinion very different from the structures of thought which that importing conifers damages Icelandic na- underwrote the land restoration and forestry cam- ture. This would destroy views and be contra- paigns (Jóhannesson 1989, p. 15): ry to Icelandicness. They argued for growing Icelandic birch instead […] But the birch grows Great and irreversible damages can be done to so slowly that it will not suffice for any substan- nature with the cultivation of lupin and planting tial wood production […] The Siberian larch of foreign trees, or drying of bogs and conversion

of hills into hayfields; activities for which relent- of invasion ecology. In a letter to Morgunblaðið, less propaganda has been driven by public and one of them brings up the persistent idea of equilib- semi-public agents. rium in nature. She writes that it is ‘totally unneces- sary to destroy the balance of the ecosystem in such The writer is most concerned with such activities places [i.e. national parks] with imported species taking place within national parks and other pro- which we might be unable to control as time passes’ tected areas. Lupins had been planted as early as (Jónsdóttir 1992, p. 16). 1954 at Bæjarstaður (Jónsson 1994), which came This attempt at eradication proved decisive for part of Skaftafell National Park more than a decade the lupin debate. In 1992 and during the next years, later. This was to become an important site of con- while the experiment at Skaftafell lasted, there frontation in the 1990s, as explained below. They was an outpouring of opinions (cf. Fig. 2), many had also been planted in the 1950s in Ásbyrgi, the commentators using strong language to make their “crown jewel” of Jökulsárgljúfur National Park point. For example, a forest scientist asks a rhe- which was designated in 1973.4 torical question: ‘Is it enough that some self-ap- Jóhannesson’s comments signify a new stream pointed team turns up at the office of the Nature of ideas that was making inroads into Icelandic Conservation Council and gets a free permit to nature debates. From the 1970s, the moral prem- “slaughter” the lupine?’ (Jónsson 1992, p. 17). ises of conservation in Iceland had gradually been Another commentator uses the metaphor of op- changing. Aesthetics, romanticism, or plain nation- pressed people under occupation: ‘I send the un- alism as the basis for conservation had given way derground resistance movement of the lupin my to knowledge from ecology and other natural sci- heartfelt greetings and hope it will conquer the ences, influenced by a growing international eco- slashers of the Nature Conservation council and logical movement (Waage 2013). Hence it was start growing again next spring’ (Sveinbjörnsson becoming possible to argue what had been almost 1993, p. 10). unthinkable before – that “green” did not neces- Predictably, a linkage was also made between sarily equal “good”. These views gradually gained racism and the opposition to lupin. Having dis- moral ground. Their adherents put great emphasis cussed the evils of racism in general at some length, on nature being allowed to develop according to its the author of a newspaper column makes a link to own principles, but concomitantly an implicit sharp the invasive species debate (Ólafsson 1992, p. 3): separation of nature from culture is found in these arguments. Luckily, antagonism towards alien immigrants In 1992 the Nature Conservation Council here has been minimal, but some odd voices (Náttúruverndarráð), responsible for the manage- have been heard. They remind me somewhat of ment of protected areas, decided to try and rein in the voices of those who cannot stand lupin be- the lupin at Bæjarstaður, within Skaftafell National cause it is not Icelandic […] Such opinions can- Park, by mowing it when in bloom. This being a la- not be taken seriously. All plants that are intend- bour-intensive task, cadres of conservation vol- ed to vegetate our harsh country are good and unteers were enlisted. The director of the Council should be welcome. (quoted in Morgunblaðið 1992), explained the ra- tionale thus: Another commentator asks, ‘Who has more right to be granted the right to stay, and full civil rights, We only have two national parks in the coun- than someone who easily adapts to the environ- try, and it is important to keep their appearance ment and does the job he was asked to do very well?’ as the legislation intends it to be. National parks (Haraldsson 1992, p. 15). are areas where natural vegetation should devel- For their part, those who supported the erad- op according to its own laws. Over there, man ication experiments sometimes resorted to strong has intervened drastically and therefore we are words also. In an editorial column in the newspaper obliged to stem this process. Tíminn in 1992, which carries the uncompromising headline ‘Nature raped’, various environmental is- The move was strongly backed by ecologists, influ- sues are discussed and the lupin in Skaftafell taken enced by growing international concerns about inva- as example. The editor comes out strongly for the sive aliens and a parallel development of the science eradication of lupin within the park, although he

148 © The author 2015 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography FLORAL HAZARDS acknowledges its value in some other settings. He Research – but no resolution alludes to ignorance of those who are against the The exchanges in the early 1990s were based on experiment in Skaftafell: ‘Many a misunderstand- strong convictions, but little research into the ac- ing occurs when ignorant people start interfering tual effects of the Nootka lupin on the environ- with nature, for profit or for beautification, or sim- ments into which it had been transplanted. Previous ply because of their interest in cultivation’ (O. Ó. research had been strongly utilitarian, concerned 1992, p. 4). A parallel was made to another inva- with issues such as how the plant could be most ef- sive alien species – of an animal kind – that had ficiently propagated, whether it had any value for become almost universally loathed (Jóhannesson grazing animals, and how it increased the nitrogen 1992, p. 15): content of soils (A. Arnalds 1979). In the 1990s and the early years of the twenty-first century, increased What the lupin and the mink have in common is emphasis was put on ecological research: the lupin’s that they came to Iceland with people […] [The impact on other plant species, animals and soil char- main worries] are about the lupin making in- acteristics. Gradually, knowledge of the plant’s be- roads into delicate vegetation – heathlands and haviour in the ecosystems of Iceland has increased. moss-clad lava fields – doing immense dam- Simultaneously its explosive spreading has become age to these diverse biological ensembles. But all the more obvious. we know precious little of how the lupin be- A major research project was launched by the haves in Iceland and should therefore not un- Agricultural Research Institute (Rannsóknastofnun dertake large projects with unforeseeable con- landbúnaðarins) in 1993, aimed at finding out sequences […] Regrettably, rather few people whether the lupin would give way to other species have teamed up against the cultivation of lupin, over time, and how it behaved in already vegetated yet at least, but understanding is growing of na- land. The results were summarized in a local natu- ture conservation and of how important it is to ral science journal some ten years later (Magnússon preserve Icelandic nature from Christmas trees et al. 2003; cf. Sigurðsson and Magnússon 2004). and “plant mink”. The scientists found that the lupin does not only col- onize eroded and unvegetated areas: it can in fact The species referred to is the American mink easily take over heathland vegetation, pushing out (Mustela vison), which had been brought into the much smaller and less vigorous native plants and country in the 1930s for fur farming but soon es- thus leading to an overall decrease in biodiversity. caped and spread throughout most regions. But the In dwarf-scrub heaths, the blueberry (Vaccinium author also uses the opportunity to attack conven- myrtillus) and bilberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) are tional forestry where conifers were used extensively. among those plants that often give way to lupin – a Articles such as this added fuel to the acrimonious fact that has become of increasing concern to many. relations that had at this stage developed between Regarding whether or when it would eventu- forest scientists and ecologists. ally yield to other plants, the research was not en- In the early 1990s, therefore, what had seemed tirely conclusive. The scientists found considerable like a broad consensus about the need to revegetate variation from one site to the next, but pointed to Iceland with whatever means available, and estab- the relatively short history of the plant at most sites lish “proper” forests by planting imported species – from 8 to 33 years when the data were collected in any place where these might grow, had given way (Magnússon et al. 2003). But they also found that to a strongly antagonistic discourse about these par- the plant built up a long-lived seed bank in the soil, ticular issues – and in more general terms about the which complicated the task of managing its spread politics of nature. No wonder perhaps that in 1992, (Sigurðsson and Magnússon 2004). another newspaper editor complained of the lack Other biological research also yielded some in- of clear moral messages regarding the land and its teresting results. Sigurðardóttir (2004) investigated treatment. In his editorial, titled ‘Ideals all mixed the lupin’s impact on earthworms in soils. She found up’, he concludes that ‘[t]he nation has to decide a substantial increase in the number of earthworms what shall be up and what shall be down in forestry, within lupin patches, earthworms being of funda- land restoration and protection, and conservation of mental importance to soil formation processes as nature’ (Kristjánsson 1992, p. 14). well as being important source of food for many bird species. More recent research has found that

© The author 2015 149 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography KARL BENEDIKTSSON the impact on invertebrate life and avifauna is pos- than the exchanges in the 1990s. On the contrary, itive (Davíðsdóttir 2013). Regarding the latter, it the increased recent attention to invasive alien spe- should be noted however that lupin patches are un- cies by the Environment Ministry and its agencies suitable habitat for waders and heathland birds, in- has upped the ante. The recommendations of the cluding some that are considered in decline globally, Working Group mentioned at the beginning of the whereas some more common species find it suitable. article included the complete removal of lupin from Among those negatively affected is the European highland areas above 400 m a.s.l., using all availa- golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), but about half ble means, notably including the use of glyphosate- the global population nests in Iceland (Davíðsdóttir based herbicides such as Monsanto’s well-known 2013). This bird holds a special place in the Icelandic Roundup (NÍ and LR 2010). This was seen by many national psyche and many people lament its disap- as a rather drastic measure. Many people concerned pearance from heathlands overtaken by lupin. with environmental matters in general were not In short, while contributing substantially to comfortable with the prospect of extensive spray- knowledge of its behaviour and impact, increased ing with herbicides in the highlands in the name of research has not led to any obvious conclusions re- environmental management. Needless to say, this garding the lupin’s desirability (or lack thereof). It proposal did not in any way serve to settle the con- has thus not resulted in anything resembling a res- troversy – on the contrary, it fanned the fires. olution of the debate. Participants have been able The discussion is now carried on not only in to pick and choose from the results what suits their the printed media; the recent rise of social media cause (cf. Sarewitz 2004). The issue remains centred has provided new platforms for continuing a con- not on natural science, but on ideology, power and frontational discourse. Facebook groups have been politics of nature, each side of the discourse making formed around each position. The Lupin Killers its own strong claims to truth. group was formed in 2010, and states its concern Overall, though, the position of anti-lupin ac- in no uncertain terms (quote from Facebook): ‘We tivists has been strengthened by natural science re- protest that the lupin is allowed to ride roughshod search, which has been reflected in recent policy over our berry-picking grounds and demand imme- statements. In a White Paper on nature conservation diate action to eradicate it!’ Apart from publishing issued in 2011, the invasive alien species problem this demand, the activity of this group seems to have received considerable attention (Óskarsdóttir 2011). been minimal. Not so with the Friends of the Lupin, The fundamental question of what is alien is taken which had nearly 1100 members in late 2013. It was up, albeit not really problematized. Actually these formed in direct opposition to the proposals by the categorizations have shifted a little. The Nature Environment Ministry’s Working Group. The fol- Conservation Act from 1999 (Alþingi 1999), which lowing statement is found on the group’s site (quote provided the first legal definition of ‘native species’, from Facebook): stipulated that this category included only those species numbered and described in the 3rd edition Never has it been more necessary for the friends of Flora Islandica (Stefánsson and Steindórsson of the lupin to stand united against non-objective 1948), considered an authority on the subject. This proposals […] for destroying and eradicating lu- was changed in 2011. Icelandic citizenship of plants pin in Europe’s least vegetated country. At the is now granted by a group of experts who prepare a same time as Icelanders should unite in an ef- special list that is issued as an Annex to a regulation fort to greatly increase land restoration and for- based on the Act (Umhverfisráðuneytið 2011). Any estry in order to restore long-lost qualities of the plant not on this list is by definition considered alien. land […], the Environment Ministry intends to The exact grounds for making these judgements are spend taxpayers’ money and energy for uproot- not made clear – in fact, as Warren (2007) has dis- ing the lupin and “reclaim” the eroded barrens cussed at length, the assumptions about what consti- and erosion escarpments. We protest this insan- tutes native or alien species are often made without ity and will react by supporting the growth and much critical and reflexive scrutiny, it seems, in con- spreading of the lupin as best we can. We know servation politics. that the lupin is in itself a land restoration plant The last bouts of exchanges on the lupin issue, and, when its job in improving the soil is done, it including those referred to at the beginning of this gives way to other vegetation. article, have been no less marked by antagonism

There is very lively interchange on this group’s characteristics and agency – its striking appearance, site, much of it less than moderate and some down- vigour, and proclivity to spread – have produced right spiteful towards those on the other side. The two diametrically opposed discursive communities most vocal of the contributors – and often the most (cf. Everts 2015), resulting in unproductive trench strident in tone – are some of the forest scientists warfare and name-calling rather than meaningful who rallied against the lupin eradication project in dialogue. Skaftafell in the early 1990s. Interestingly, natural scientists play key roles on both sides. The reasons have much to do with the circumstances surrounding the lupin’s introduc- Conclusion: floral hazards, nationalism and tion, as I have shown. It was foresters who intro- (natural) science duced it and most enthusiastically contributed to its Nature is not what it used to be – or rather, not as it spread. The immensely influential – but uncompro- used to be imagined to be. In the Anthropocene, na- mising and sometimes confrontational – director of ture is much more fluid and uncertain than previ- IFS set the tone during his long reign. Present-day ous imaginings gave room for (Robbins and Moore foresters and forest scientists have to a large degree, 2013). It is perhaps no wonder therefore that inva- it seems, taken up his view of the (natural) world siveness often engenders so heated politics of na- without much questioning and have little tolerance ture. Yearley’s (2006, p. 12) observation is relevant for alternative viewpoints. Underlying their posi- here: ‘risk anxieties and nature worries in contem- tion is an unswerving conviction that they are do- porary societies come not principally from un- ing the country good with their forestry activities. controlled natural events but from the unintended Whereas forest scientists often accuse their oppo- consequences of human interventions in nature’. nents of nationalism and xenophobic views, forestry The rising wave of concern with invasive life in Iceland was itself founded on utilitarian nation- must be understood in this light. Some commen- alism. Forestry came to mean the planting of “real” tators (e.g. Brown and Sax 2004; Colautti and forests, producing usable timber. Anything that Richardson 2009; Davis et al. 2011) have called for threatens to destabilize this utilitarian view of nature a more objective approach to these matters, includ- therefore provokes extremely hostile reactions. The ing discarding subjective terms about the geograph- question in the minds of many foresters is: if lupin ical origin of species and paying more attention to is defined as generally undesirable, will coniferous the actual impact they have on the biota where they tree species be next? In fact, planted conifers – most make inroads. Larson (2007) offers a different as- notably Pinus contorta, or lodgepole pine – have al- sessment: pointing to the inexorably moral nature of ready started spreading on their own accord, as the these controversies he argues that careful attention author has personally observed in southeast Iceland. to the subjective values underlying different posi- Turning to the biologists and ecologists on the tions holds more promise for their resolution. opposite side of the debate, one indeed finds the na- In this article I have attempted to understand tionalist imagination at work there also, with fre- how such values are articulated through discourse quent references to “Icelandic” plants and birds, and – which includes not only verbal and textual com- of course implicitly with the very use of terms such munication, but also involves the establishment of as native and alien. Nature conservation in Iceland common structures of thought and practice, and has been associated with nationalism for a long time. the setting of limits of proper and indeed possible But this is a contentious matter: following a confer- action. However, discourse analysts have some- ence presentation where I discussed this association, times underplayed the potency of alternative dis- a prominent figure in Icelandic nature politics con- courses. This comes across clearly in the story told tacted me in private to dispel any such suggestions. here. Until the late 1980s, the lupin was hailed as a That person was adamant that no hint of national- wonderplant that would at last enable Icelanders to ism was present in the minds of the ecologists who tackle the enormous problems of land degradation. were campaigning against invasive alien species; it Then, in just a few years, the discourse of biodiver- was all simply about (objective) science and interna- sity remade the plant into a floral hazard: an invasive tional obligations for maintaining biodiversity. This intruder that posed a severe threat to the native biota. lack of reflexivity is unfortunate: as Larson (2007, The result is fractured politics of invasive life that p. 948) has remarked, ‘[i]nvasion biologists specif- appear stuck in some very deep ruts. The plant’s own ically need to reflect upon the meaning of scientific

© The author 2015 151 Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2015 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography KARL BENEDIKTSSON objectivity in their field’. They cannot insist on a critiques and hints to some very relevant literature. monopoly on “objective” truth claims that can serve Special thanks are due to the editors for their me- as the basis for normative policy. ticulous reading and suggestions for improvements. Controversies of this kind will not be solved sim- I take full responsibility for any errors that may ply by more science – more emphasis on “evidence- remain. based” environmental policy (cf. Likens 2010), or more effective communication of scientific findings Karl Benediktsson to the public in order to counteract an information Department of Geography and Tourism “deficit” (cf. Besley andN isbet 2013). This is not to Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences deny the immense value of natural science research University of Iceland for understanding the processes at work, but such un- IS-101 Reykjavík derstanding alone does not address the reasons for Iceland why the controversy has become so intractable. As E-mail: [email protected] this example has shown, natural scientists unavoid- ably come to their research with varying ideologi- Notes cal and historical baggage or structures of thought 1. Spelled Lupinus Nutcaensis in a report about the trials (Buijs and Elands 2013), which permeates their work (Helgason 1911, p. 235). 2. the outwash plain where the lupin brought from Alaska in 1945 as well as the interpretation of its findings. In cases had been planted. like this, the scientific community cannot effectively 3. In Icelandic: Græðum landið. The verb græða has in fact many take on the role of arbitration (Sarewitz 2000, 2004). meanings: to heal; to revegetate; to make a profit. In general, as Sarewitz (2004, p. 399) notes, 4. Both locations are now part of the large Vatnajökull National Park. there is no reason why environmental controversies must be highly “scientized.” Even if science References brings such a controversy into focus […] the A. B. S. (1987): ‘Byggræktarbændur á Þorvaldseyri og Land controversy itself exists only because conflict græðsla ríkisins: Bylting í uppgræðslu lands vegna nýrrar ko- rnþreskivélar’, Tíminn 11 August: 7. over values and interests also exists […] pro- ALDERMAN, D. H. (2004): ‘Channing Cope and the making of a gress in addressing environmental controversies miracle vine’, Geographical Review 94 (2): 157–177. will need to come primarily from advances in ALÞINGI (1999): ‘Lög um náttúruvernd nr. 44, 22. mars 1999’, political process, rather than scientific research. Stjórnartíðindi A 1 May: 116–133. ARNALDS, A. (1979): ‘Rannsóknir á alaskalúpínu (Lupinus nootkatensis Donn ex Sims)’, Ársrit Skógræktarfélags Íslands 1979: This, however, requires a form of open and inclusive 13–21. discussion about invasive life, for which substantial ARNALDS, A. (1987): ‘Ecosystem disturbance in Iceland’, Arctic preparation work needs to done if it is to be effective. and Alpine Research 19 (4): 508–513. ARNALDS, Ó. and BARKARSON, B. H. (2003): ‘Soil erosion Advances in this regard most certainly require more and land use policy in Iceland in relation to sheep grazing and input from critical social science and humanities, in government subsidies’, Environmental Science and Policy 6 addition to natural science. Acknowledgement of (1): 105–113. the “multinatural condition” (Lorimer 2012) of the ARNALDS, Ó., ÞÓRARINSDÓTTIR, E. F., METÚSALEMSSON, S., JÓNSSON, A., GRÉTARSSON, E. and ÁRNASON, A. Anthropocene and the challenges it engenders is es- (2001): Soil erosion in Iceland. Soil Conservation Service and sential. Invasive life controversies are not so much the Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík. about something out there called nature, but rather ÁRNASON, Þ. (2005): Views of Nature and Environmental about the complex relationalities that connect the Concern in Iceland. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science 339, Linköpings universitet, Linköping. human and the nonhuman. ARTS, B. and BUIZER, M. (2009): ‘Forests, discourses, institu- tions: a discursive-institutional analysis of global forest gov- ernance’, Forest Policy and Economics 11 (5–6): 340–347. Acknowledgements BAILEY, J. (2011): ‘The rise and fall of Japanese knotweed?’, in ROTHERHAM, I. D. and LAMBERT, R. A. (eds) (2011): The research on which this article is based has been Invasive and Introduced Plants and Animals: Human presented at conferences in Iceland and Germany. Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Management. The lively exchange with the audience at these oc- Earthscan, London, pp. 221–232. casions has yielded much to the article. The author BARKER, K. (2010): ‘Biosecure citizenship: politicising sym- biotic associations and the construction of biological threat’, thanks Jonathan Everts for valuable comments and Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 35 (3): two autonomous reviewers for their constructive 350–363.

BESLEY, J. C. and NISBET, M. (2013): ‘How scientists view FORSETH, I. N., Jr and INNIS, A. F. (2004): ‘Kudzu (Pueraria the public, the media and the political process’, Public montana): history, physiology, and ecology combine to make Understanding of Science 22 (6): 644–659. a major ecosystem threat’, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences BINGHAM, N. and HINCHLIFFE, S. (2008): ‘Reconstituting na- 23 (5): 401–413. tures: articulating other modes of living together’, Geoforum FRANCIS, R. A. and GOODMAN, M. K. (2010): ‘Post-normal 39 (1): 83–87. science and the art of nature conservation’, Journal for Nature BJARNASON, H. (1952): ‘Þrjár stórmerkar nytjaplöntur frá Conservation 18 (2): 89–105. Alaska dafna vel hér á landi’, Morgunblaðið 15 August: 2. GOBSTER, P. H. (2011): ‘Factors affecting people’s responses to BJARNASON, H. (1968): ‘Sumar og skógur. Fátækt land’, invasive species management’, in ROTHERHAM, I. D. and Morgunblaðið 9 August: 5. LAMBERT, R. A. (eds) (2011): Invasive and Introduced Plants BJARNASON, H. (1983): ‘Endurgræðsla Hálsmela í Fnjóskadal’, and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and Approaches to Morgunblaðið 12 November: 30. Management. Earthscan, London, pp. 249–263. BLÖNDAL, H. (1971): ‘Fallegastur er skógurinn vor og haust’, GUÐMUNDSSON, F. (1960): ‘Náttúruvernd og skógrækt’, Íslendingur–Ísafold 43 (7 October): 4–5. Náttúrufræðingurinn 30 (2): 98–99. BLÖNDAL, S. and GUNNARSSON, S. B. (1999): Íslandsskógar: GUNNARSSON, E. (2011): ‘Ráðstjórn svartrar náttúruhyggju’, hundrað ára saga. Mál og mynd, Reykjavík. Vísir 17 January [online]. URL http://www.visir.is/radstjorn- BROWN, J. H. and SAX, D. F. (2004): ‘An essay on some topics svartrar-natturuhyggju/article/2011268898724 [accessed 24 concerning invasive species’, Austral Ecology 29 (5): 530–536. October 2013]. BUIJS, A. E. and ELANDS, B. H. M. (2013): ‘Does exper- G. Þ. (1954): ‘Heimsókn í Fljótshlíðina, þar sem skógamir dafna: tise matter? An in-depth understanding of people’s struc- Takmarkið er að Íslendingar byggi hús sín og skip úr íslenzkum ture of thoughts on nature and its management implications’, viðum’, Tíminn 38 (175): 8. Biological Conservation 168: 184–191. HAGER, H. A. and McCOY, K. D. (1998): ‘The implications of ac- CARRUTHERS, J., ROBIN, L., HATTINGH, J. P., KULL, C. A., cepting untested hypotheses: a review of the effects of purple RANGAN, H. and van WILGEN, B. W. (2011): ‘A native at loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) in North America’, Biodiversity home and abroad: the history, politics, ethics and aesthetics of and Conservation 7 (8): 1069–1079. acacias’, Diversity and Distributions 17 (5): 810–821. HARALDSSON, B. F. (1992): ‘Um alaskalúpínu og “European CHEW, M. K. (2009): ‘The monstering of tamarisk: how scientists Dimploma”’ [sic], Morgunblaðið 26 June: 15. made a plant into a problem’, Journal of the History of Biology HEAD, L. and ATCHISON, J. (2015): ‘Entangled invasive lives: 42 (2): 231–266. Indigenous Invasive Plant Management in northern Australia’, COLAUTTI, R. I. and RICHARDSON, D. M. (2009): ‘Subjectivity Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 97 (2): and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good 169–182. thing?’, Biological Invasions 11 (6): 1225–1229. HELGASON, E. (1911): ‘Gróðrarstöðin í Reykjavík. Skýrsla um CROFTS, R. (2011): Healing the Land: The Story of Land árin 1909 og 1910’, Búnaðarrit 25: 228–245. Reclamation and Soil Conservation in Iceland. Soil HULTINE, K. R., BELNAP, J., van RIPER III, C., EHLERINGER, Conservation Service of Iceland, Hella. J. R., DENNISON, P. E., LEE, M. E., NAGLER, P. L., CROSBY, A. W. (1986): Ecological Imperialism: The Biological SNYDER, K. A., USELMAN, S. M. and WEST, J. B. (2010): Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, ‘Tamarisk biocontrol in the western United States: ecolog- Cambridge. ical and societal implications’, Frontiers in Ecology and the DAVÍÐSDÓTTIR, B. (2013): The effect of vegetation reclama- Environment 8 (9): 467–474. tion on birds and invertebrates in Iceland: a comparative study JÓHANNESSON, I. Á. (1989): ‘Að gefa öndum brauð’, of barren land, restored heathland and land revegetated by Dagblaðið–Vísir 4 September: 15. Nootka lupin. MS thesis, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, JÓHANNESSON, I. Á. (1992): ‘Ræktun eða náttúruvernd?’, Agricultural University of Iceland, Hvanneyri. Dagblaðið–Vísir 6 July: 15. DAVIS, M. A., CHEW, M. K., HOBBS, R. J., LUGO, A. E., EWEL, JÓNSDÓTTIR, G. (1992): ‘Takmörkun á útbreiðslu lúpínu í J. J., VERMEIJ, G. J., BROWN, J. H., ROSENZWEIG, M. Þjóðgarðinum í Skaftafelli’, Morgunblaðið 1 July: 16. L., GARDENER, M. R., CARROLL, S. P., THOMPSON, JÓNSDÓTTIR, I. S., GÍSLASON, G. M., PÁLSDÓTTIR, K., PICKETT, S. T. A., STROMBERG, J. C., Del TREDICI, G. L., LIBUNGAN, L. A., GUNNARSSON, T. G., von P., SUDING, K. N., EHRENFELD, J. G., GRIME, J. P., SCHMALENSEE, M., SVAVARSDÓTTIR, K., ARADÓTTIR, MASCARO, J. and BRIGGS, J. C. (2011): ‘Don’t judge spe- Á. L., GUÐBRANDSSON, G. I., ÆGISDÓTTIR, H. cies on their origins’, Nature 474 (7350): 153–154. H., SIGURÐARDÓTTIR, R., MAGNÚSDÓTTIR, R., ERNWEIN, M. and FALL, J. J. (2015): ‘Communicating inva- STEFÁNSSON, R. A. and ÞÓRHALLSDÓTTIR, Þ. E. sion: understanding social anxieties around mobile species’, (2011): ‘Ágengar framandi tegundir eru umhverfisvandamál’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 97 (2): Fréttablaðið 20 January: 18. 155–167. JÓNSSON, B. (1992): ‘Náttúruverndarráð á villigötum í EVERTS, J. (2015): ‘Invasive life, communities of practice, and Skaftafelli’, Morgunblaðið 1 July: 17. communities of fate’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human JÓNSSON, G. (1994): ‘Bæjarstaður og alaskalúpínan’, Geography 97 (2): 195–208. Skógræktarritið 1994: 27–33. FISCHER, A., SELGE, S., van der WAL, R. and LARSON, B. M. KARLSDÓTTIR, U. B. (2010): Þar sem fossarnir falla – nát- H. (2014): ‘The public and professionals reason similarly about túrusýn og nýting fallvatna á Íslandi 1900–2008. Hið íslenska the management of non-native invasive species: a quantitative bókmenntafélag, Reykjavík. investigation of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes’, KRISTINSSON, H. (2010): A Guide to the Flowering Plants and PloS One 9 (8): e105495. Ferns of Iceland. 3rd edn. Mál og menning, Reykjavík. Førde, A. and Magnussen, T. (2015): ‘Invaded by weeds: KRISTJÁNSSON, J. (1992): ‘Hugsjónir í hrærigraut’, Dagblaðið– contested landscape stories’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Vísir 7 July: 14. Human Geography 97 (2): 183–193.

KULL, C. A. and RANGAN, H. (2008): ‘Acacia exchanges: wat- SAREWITZ, D. (2000): ‘Science and environmental policy: an ex- tles, thorn trees, and the study of plant movements’, Geoforum cess of objectivity’, in FRODEMAN, R. (ed.): Earth Matters: 39 (3): 1258–1272. The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community. LACH, D., LIST, P., STEEL, B. and SHINDLER, B. (2003): Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 79–98. ‘Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource SAREWITZ, D. (2004): ‘How science makes environmental con- decisionmaking: a regional study’, BioScience 53 (2): 170–178. troversies worse’, Environmental Science and Policy 7 (5): LARSON, B. M. H. (2005): ‘The war of the roses: demilitarizing 385–403. invasion biology’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment SCHIERBECK, H. J. G. (1886): ‘Skýrsla um nokkrar tilraunir til 3 (9): 495–500. jurtaræktunar á Íslandi’, Tímarit hins íslenzka bókmentafélags LARSON, B. M. H. (2007): ‘An alien approach to invasive spe- 7: 1–66. cies: objectivity and society in invasion biology’, Biological SHARP, L. and RICHARDSON, T. (2001): ‘Reflections on Invasions 9 (8): 947–956. Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmen- LIKENS, G. E. (2010): ‘The role of science in decision making: tal policy research’, Journal of Environmental Policy and does evidence-based science drive environmental policy?’, Planning 3 (3): 193–209. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8 (6): e1–e9. SIGURÐARDÓTTIR, H. (2004): ‘Ánamaðkar og niðurbrot sinu í LATOUR, B. (2005): Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to lúpínubreiðum’, Náttúrufræðingurinn 71 (1–2): 13–19. Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. SIGURÐSSON, B. D. and MAGNÚSSON, B. (2004): LÖGBERG–HEIMSKRINGLA (1993): ‘Selling seeds to Alaska’, ‘Frævistfræði alaskalúpínu’, Náttúrufræðingurinn 72 (3–4): Lögberg–Heimskringla 107 (21): 1. 110–116. LORIMER, J. (2012): ‘Multinatural geographies for the SIGURGEIRSSON, A., EYSTEINSSON, Þ., LÚÐVÍKSSON, Anthropocene’, Progress in Human Geography 36 (5): V., ROBERTSON, A., STANZEIT, B., JÓNSSON, B. B., 593–612. JÓNSSON, B., LÚÐVÍKSDÓTTIR, D., BJÖRNSDÓTTIR, E., MAGNÚSSON, B., MAGNÚSSON, S. H. and SIGURÐSSON, B. GUNNARSSON, E., HELGADÓTTIR, G., LOFTSSON, J., D. (2003): ‘Áhrif alaskalúpínu á gróðurfar’, Náttúrufræðingur GUNNARSSON, M., FREYSTEINSDÓTTIR, R., HJARTAR, inn 71 (3–4): 98–111. S., EINARSDÓTTIR, V. and ÁRNASON, R. (2011): ‘Hvaða McNEEL Y, J. A. (2011): ‘Xenophobia or conservation: some human framandi lífverur eru umhverfisvandamál á Íslandi? Seinni dimensions of invasive alien species’, in ROTHERHAM, I. D. hluti’, Fréttablaðið 23 January: 14. and LAMBERT, R. A. (eds) (2011): Invasive and Introduced SIMBERLOFF, D. (2003): ‘Confronting introduced species: a Plants and Animals: Human Perceptions, Attitudes and form of xenophobia?’, Biological Invasions 5 (3): 179–192. Approaches to Management. Earthscan, London, pp. 19–36. STARFINGER, U., KOWARIK, I., RODE, M. and SCHEPKER, MORGUNBLAÐIÐ (1955): ‘Hugvekja um væntanlegan innflut- H. (2003): ‘From desirable ornamental plant to pest to accepted ning nytjagróðurs’, Morgunblaðið 29 November: 8–9. addition to the flora? – the perception of an alien tree species MORGUNBLAÐIÐ (1963): ‘Lúpínan nemur land í Heiðmörk’, through the centuries’, Biological Invasions 5 (4): 323–335. Morgunblaðið 19 July: 24. STEFÁNSSON, S. and STEINDÓRSSON, S. (1948): Flóra MORGUNBLAÐIÐ (1992): ‘Náttúruverndarráð: Lúpínan að kæfa Íslands. 3rd edn. Hið íslenzka náttúrufræðifélag, Akureyri. annan gróður í Skaftafelli’, Morgunblaðið 1 July: 7. STROMBERG, J. C., CHEW, M. K., NAGLER, P. L. and GLENN, NÍ and LR (2010): Alaskalúpína og skógarkerfill á Íslandi. E. P. (2009): ‘Changing perceptions of change: the role of sci- Útbreiðsla, varnir og nýting. Skýrsla til umhverfisráðherra. entists in Tamarix and river management’, Restoration Ecology Náttúrufræðistofnun Íslands og Landgræðsla ríkisins, 17 (2): 177–186. Reykjavík. SVEINBJÖRNSSON, H. (1993): ‘Svört náttúruvernd’, Morgun Ó. B. G. (1977): ‘Lúpínur (Lupinus)’, Morgunblaðið 6 August: 8. blaðið 21 August: 10–11. O. Ó. (1992): ‘Náttúrunni nauðgað’, Tíminn 15 May: 4. UMHVERFISRÁÐUNEYTIÐ (2011): ‘Reglugerð um breytingu ÓLAFSSON, T. (1992): ‘Kynþáttafordómar og við sjálf’, Lesbók á reglugerð nr. 583/2000 um innflutning, ræktun og dreifingu Morgunblaðsins 29 August: 3. útlendra plöntutegunda, nr. 398, 12. apríl 2011’. Stjórnartíðindi ÓSKARSDÓTTIR, A. V. (ed.) (2011): Náttúruvernd: Hvítbók B 18 April: 790–798. um löggjöf til verndar náttúru Íslands. Umhverfisráðuneytið, WAAGE, E. R. H. (2013): The Concept of Landslag: Meanings Reykjavík. and Value for Nature Conservation. Faculty of Life and QVENILD, M. (2014): ‘Wanted and unwanted nature: landscape Environmental Sciences University of Iceland, Reykjavík. development at Fornebu, Norway’, Journal of Environmental Warren, C. R. (2007): ‘Perspectives on the “alien” versus “na- Policy and Planning 16 (2): 183–200. tive” species debate: a critique of concepts, language and prac- RICHARDSON, D. M. and PYŠEK, P. (2008): ‘Fifty years of in- tice’, Progress in Human Geography 31 (4): 427–446. vasion ecology – the legacy of Charles Elton’, Diversity and WHATMORE, S. (2002): Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Distributions 14 (2): 161–168. Spaces. Sage, London. RICHARDSON, D. M. and RICCIARDI, A. (2013): ‘Misleading WHATMORE, S. (2006): ‘Materialist returns: practising cultural criticisms of invasion science: a field guide’, Diversity and geography in and for a more-than-human world’, Cultural Distributions 19 (12): 1461–1467. Geographies 13 (4): 600–609. ROBBINS, P. (2004): ‘Comparing invasive networks: cultural YEARLEY, S. (2006): ‘How many “ends” of nature: making so- and political biographies of invasive species’, Geographical ciological and phenomenological sense of the end of nature’, Review 94 (2): 139–156. Nature and Culture 1 (1): 10–21. Robbins, P. and Moore, S. A. (2013): ‘Ecological anxiety dis- ÞJÓÐVILJINN (1990): ‘Álfur byggir upp land og lýð’, Þjóðviljinn order: diagnosing the politics of the Anthropocene’, Cultural 15 May: 2. Geographies 20 (1): 3–19. SÆMUNDSSON, H. (1961): ‘Eins og skegghýjungur á andliti un- grar konu’, Vikan 23 (26): 4–5, 34, 38.