Would glacier 'trees' be plausible?Arctic Airships, Part 1 - Generating ElectricityIf Earth Were Forged by Fire and IceFeasibility of conventional life evolving an a sub-zero climateWhich climate and geological conditions would be the most suitable for capitol of tidally locked planet?Could Bamboos Evolve Into Trees In the Past?Biochemistry of Plants harnessing heat-energy when blue-shifted light is scarceHow to kill trees?Are Extraterrestrial's pagoda trees plausible?How would trees communicate?

Is there a historical explanation as to why the USA people are so litigious compared to France?

Why does b+=(4,) work and b = b + (4,) doesn't work when b is a list?

Are Snap and Flatpack apps safe to install? Are they "official", approved or tested for a particular distro version?

How to add an image as background in PSTricks?

Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?

How can I add a recepticle to this junction box full of push splices?

How does Firefox know my ISP login page?

How to give a rationality-inducing drug to an entire software company?

What dictates cathode vs anode nomenclature use?

Anatomically Correct Baku

How to respond to "Why didn't you do a postdoc after your PhD?"

Text on old-fashioned differential geometry

Word for data set that holds up through outliers?

Open Loop gain of an Op-Amp

Magento2 :How To Use Form Key In Frontend Grid Using Ui Component

Usefulness of Nash embedding theorem

I got this nail stuck in my tire, should I plug or replace?

Translate "Everything burns" into classical Latin

How is Smough's name pronounced?

How to say dandruff in Esperanto?

Can Boris Johnson invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to suspend the Benn law?

What is this game with a red cricket pushing a ball?

"Table" method for expanding brackets vs "each term in the first bracket gets multiplied by each term in the second bracket"

Advisor asked my whole slide presentation so she could give the presentation at international conference



Would glacier 'trees' be plausible?


Arctic Airships, Part 1 - Generating ElectricityIf Earth Were Forged by Fire and IceFeasibility of conventional life evolving an a sub-zero climateWhich climate and geological conditions would be the most suitable for capitol of tidally locked planet?Could Bamboos Evolve Into Trees In the Past?Biochemistry of Plants harnessing heat-energy when blue-shifted light is scarceHow to kill trees?Are Extraterrestrial's pagoda trees plausible?How would trees communicate?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








27














$begingroup$


The setting is in a region of a planet comparable to Earth's California in regards to location. The soil is extremely rich in nutrients and subsurface water. But for the past three million years the planet has been locked in an ice-age. Could 'trees' adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?



If the 'trees' had evolved to collect sunlight energy and convert it into heat energy in its roots would it be able to bore through the ice slowly while also absorbing the liquid water?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • 9




    $begingroup$
    The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Pleiades
    Apr 30 at 15:07






  • 13




    $begingroup$
    How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    Apr 30 at 15:13






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Sar
    Apr 30 at 18:25






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    May 1 at 8:28











  • $begingroup$
    How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
    $endgroup$
    – Deruijter
    May 2 at 13:51

















27














$begingroup$


The setting is in a region of a planet comparable to Earth's California in regards to location. The soil is extremely rich in nutrients and subsurface water. But for the past three million years the planet has been locked in an ice-age. Could 'trees' adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?



If the 'trees' had evolved to collect sunlight energy and convert it into heat energy in its roots would it be able to bore through the ice slowly while also absorbing the liquid water?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • 9




    $begingroup$
    The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Pleiades
    Apr 30 at 15:07






  • 13




    $begingroup$
    How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    Apr 30 at 15:13






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Sar
    Apr 30 at 18:25






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    May 1 at 8:28











  • $begingroup$
    How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
    $endgroup$
    – Deruijter
    May 2 at 13:51













27












27








27


7



$begingroup$


The setting is in a region of a planet comparable to Earth's California in regards to location. The soil is extremely rich in nutrients and subsurface water. But for the past three million years the planet has been locked in an ice-age. Could 'trees' adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?



If the 'trees' had evolved to collect sunlight energy and convert it into heat energy in its roots would it be able to bore through the ice slowly while also absorbing the liquid water?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The setting is in a region of a planet comparable to Earth's California in regards to location. The soil is extremely rich in nutrients and subsurface water. But for the past three million years the planet has been locked in an ice-age. Could 'trees' adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?



If the 'trees' had evolved to collect sunlight energy and convert it into heat energy in its roots would it be able to bore through the ice slowly while also absorbing the liquid water?







reality-check evolution earth-like flora ice






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question








edited May 3 at 14:56







ShimmeringCosmos

















asked Apr 30 at 14:57









ShimmeringCosmosShimmeringCosmos

7214 silver badges16 bronze badges




7214 silver badges16 bronze badges










  • 9




    $begingroup$
    The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Pleiades
    Apr 30 at 15:07






  • 13




    $begingroup$
    How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    Apr 30 at 15:13






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Sar
    Apr 30 at 18:25






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    May 1 at 8:28











  • $begingroup$
    How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
    $endgroup$
    – Deruijter
    May 2 at 13:51












  • 9




    $begingroup$
    The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Pleiades
    Apr 30 at 15:07






  • 13




    $begingroup$
    How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Liam Morris
    Apr 30 at 15:13






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
    $endgroup$
    – T. Sar
    Apr 30 at 18:25






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    May 1 at 8:28











  • $begingroup$
    How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
    $endgroup$
    – Deruijter
    May 2 at 13:51







9




9




$begingroup$
The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
$endgroup$
– Pleiades
Apr 30 at 15:07




$begingroup$
The seeds would likely still need nutrients to grow into the ice, and given that it's ice, there's probably a good deal of energy necessary to drill down into it. You may want to distribute nutrients throughout the ice or have plant matter decay into it so have a form a psudeosoil before reaching the actual surface.
$endgroup$
– Pleiades
Apr 30 at 15:07




13




13




$begingroup$
How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
Apr 30 at 15:13




$begingroup$
How thick is the ice? It would be easier for roots to get through several meters of ice as opposed to several miles of it.
$endgroup$
– Liam Morris
Apr 30 at 15:13




10




10




$begingroup$
I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
$endgroup$
– T. Sar
Apr 30 at 18:25




$begingroup$
I read the start ofthis question as "planet comparable to California", and was really confused by quite a few moments.
$endgroup$
– T. Sar
Apr 30 at 18:25




12




12




$begingroup$
There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
May 1 at 8:28





$begingroup$
There is no soil under a glacier. Glaciers have this habit of scraping off everying in their path down to the bedrock...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
May 1 at 8:28













$begingroup$
How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
$endgroup$
– Deruijter
May 2 at 13:51




$begingroup$
How much trees are we talking about? Remember that trees drop stuff, die, animals live in/near trees, feed and poop. After some while the ice near your tree is covered in leaves, poop, food left-overs etc. which will eventually create some kind of soil on top of the ice. Have you taken that into account? Can you comment on that?
$endgroup$
– Deruijter
May 2 at 13:51










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















30
















$begingroup$

Maybe seeds isn't the way to go. A seed would be hard-pressed to contain all the nutrients to build deep enough roots.



Instead, how about one of the many forms of asexual reproduction common in plants, such as vegetative propagation. Basically, a branch of the tree hangs low, touched the ice, begins growing roots until it hits the soil, then the linking branch withers, separating the now-complete plant from its parent.



Or, scrap the soil idea entirely. As others have said, under so much ice for so long the soil won't be anything to write home about. Plants with their roots in water exist. Maybe your trees' roots melt the ice chemically and drink that up for water. Ice that formed through layers of snowfall won't have much in the way of nutrients naturally, but if your glacier hosts a rich ecosystem with animals and plants living and dying on its surface, it could work. That poses another problem though: either your microbes have evolved beyond the real arctic ones and can decompose the corpses in the icy cold, or your ice is less 'nutrient-rich water, but solid' and more 'sterile, unforgiving ice with pockets of preserved corpses', at which point your plants spread their roots (via chemical melt) through it to find and chemically digest the corpses - like carnivorous plants that eat with their roots.



That is more of a creeper plant than a tree, though, so you'll need an excuse why the whole bark-tree-thing is needed. And, don't expect them to be pleasant either: the thorns of plants like briars are meant to hook into careless creatures and keep them tangled until they die and fertilise the soil - right where the plant is, not way over there. If the ice tree had to crawl its way through the ice to find ancient corpses that might be there, it would either develop the means to create new ones where they're close and easy to reach, or form a symbiotic relationship with something that does. Your forest floor will be covered in preserved bodies or their husks, mostly those of desperate scavengers that came to feed on the previous ones and proved as unlucky.






share|improve this answer










$endgroup$






















    32
















    $begingroup$

    Maybe, nature is incredibly inventive, but there are a couple of problems with the basic premise;



    1. Glaciers "bulldoze" soil out of the way when they move down valley. If there is any major volume of ice around the pre-freeze soils have been pushed off the slopes.


    2. The glaciers aren't going to stop moving for the trees that are growing through them either. The life expectancy of anything growing through an active glacier is measured in months; the time between first frost (when the glacier freezes to it's bed for the winter) and the thaw (when it starts to move for the spring and summer months). In temperate areas that can have winter rains it's even worse as winter storms can cause short melt spells, and glacial surges, in the otherwise stable cold months.


    3. They don't have to; trees, in fact whole forests, can and do grow on top of glaciers, soils often form on the lower sections of ice flows, supporting a variety of plant life. I myself have seen willow and poplar growing on soil covered ice near the toe of Fox Glacier in New Zealand and there are pine forests on the lower lobes of a couple of European glaciers.


    As for roots melting through the ice chemical rather than thermal melting is probably easier to explain, salt excreted from the roots could raise the freezing point sufficiently to thaw down through the ice, water absorption would be automatic due to osmotic pressure.






    share|improve this answer












    $endgroup$










    • 6




      $begingroup$
      +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
      $endgroup$
      – Alexandre Aubrey
      May 1 at 14:40






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
      $endgroup$
      – llama
      May 1 at 17:26










    • $begingroup$
      +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
      $endgroup$
      – Peter Shor
      May 2 at 12:41











    • $begingroup$
      The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      May 2 at 17:16






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
      $endgroup$
      – Ash
      May 5 at 18:11


















    28
















    $begingroup$

    Up from below.



    knotweed breakin thru pavement
    https://morgan-outdoors.com/?p=1443



    Your glacier trees can take some pages from the playbook of the invasive Japanese knotweed, famous for its ability to break its way up through concrete.



    1. Your plants establish on the edge of the glacier. Runoff provides liquid water. The soil is good. Organic nitrogen is in short supply but these plants can fix their own nitrogen.


    2. They put down deep roots. Knotweed roots are 5 meters down. The soil next to a glacier facilitates this.


    3. They spread out in a clonal patch; if these are trees then like an aspen clone. Plants come up thru the adjacent ice.


    4. As new roots are laid down deeper into the ice field, the plant can encroach its way into the ice. Ice is broken as it goes. If this just an ice field, the plant will facilitate the dissolution of the ice. If this is a flowing glacier then it will fight back.


    This sidesteps the issue of nitrogen and puts your plants over and under the ice.



    Last piece: slider seeds.



    These are big seeds, like coconut. They have enough resources in each seed to establish a hardy well rooted plant on minimal resources, like the coconut does for a sandy beach. These big seeds have sails and slide or tumble across the ice fields until they hit a low point and lodge. If this is a fissure or a bare patch or somewhere with access to the soil then the tree can get established and start a new clone.



    Maybe instead of just seeds, during storms entire trees can break off from the clone and slide across the ice. Knotweed can definitely break off and take root in a new place from loose fragments with associated resources. . With access to water it can cannibalize its parts to grow the deep root needed to establish itself deeper in the ice field.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
      $endgroup$
      – Joe Bloggs
      Apr 30 at 16:24






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
      $endgroup$
      – The Nate
      Apr 30 at 23:02






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
      $endgroup$
      – cowlinator
      Apr 30 at 23:21


















    13
















    $begingroup$

    Fertile soil is fertile, because it contains nutrients, and nutrients come from decomposed organic matter. If the place is covered in ice for 3mln years, and all organisms which live there live on the top of the glacier, I'm afraid the soil beneath it can't be fertile.
    Unless there is something else going on, like for example another ecosystem of organisms living under the ice. But in that case you would need much more than three million years for the evolution to make it work.



    Back to your main question: Ice thickness on Antarctica, as well as thickness of glaciers during the most recent ice age, was about 2-4km. Trees growing 2-4km long roots from a single seed would be very difficult to rationalize, since only after touching the fertile soil beneath the tree would be able to get additional resources to build itself.
    Maybe you can say that the seed builds a carbon nanotube, drills it through the ice, and then sucks in nutrients and water. But again, three million years is not enough to evolve something like that. To be honest, I don't think any number of years would be enough - your readers will think you're just hand-waving things. Instead, maybe, the "seeds" could in reality be complex nanomechanisms, planted on the planet by an advanced civilization. The trees that grow out of them are real trees in every aspect except for that their own new seeds are really built by nanobots living inside them.



    I hope that helps.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$










    • 1




      $begingroup$
      How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
      $endgroup$
      – Joe Bloggs
      Apr 30 at 15:22







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
      $endgroup$
      – nigel222
      May 1 at 12:05










    • $begingroup$
      nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
      $endgroup$
      – makingthematrix
      May 4 at 18:33


















    8
















    $begingroup$

    Lightning trees!



    The first law of living in extreme environments is: never expend resources you don’t have to. In your case, why do hard work getting down to the soil if you can get a lightning storm to do it for you?



    Assuming that some part of the year, the surface temperature is above freezing (or you can’t have plant life anyways) your glacial plateaus will have lightning storms, with liquid water coming down, to boot.



    Ice is a terrible conductor, and your trees are a tall and jutting path to ground. Cue:



    enter image description here



    “Ah!” but you say, “But then my tree has exploded!”



    Well, that’s okay. That’s exactly what your tree wanted! It’s an active pyrophyte.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte



    So it explodes, and sends chunks of itself skittering around the whole damn surface of the glacier! Maybe like eucalyptus trees, its entire canopy can detach and get blown miles away... where it attracts a second lightning strike, which cracks and melts a path down to the soil beneath, where your pyrophyte seeds happily settle in to grow in newly wet soil.






    share|improve this answer










    $endgroup$






















      3
















      $begingroup$

      The main issue with roots going all the way through the glacier is that glaciers move.



      More importantly, they move through deformation. This means that the base of the glacier is moving at a different speed than the surface. A solid object going all the way through the glacier (e.g. root) will get stretched, torn, and destroyed.



      Many other answers provide alternatives that would still allow you to have a glacier covered in forest.






      share|improve this answer










      $endgroup$






















        2
















        $begingroup$

        Not all glaciers are sparkling white. Some are dirty, in that they contain a certain amount of soil. The soil could be churned up from the ground the glacier flows over and rises to the top, or it can be deposited by other means, such as wind storms or volcanic eruptions.



        This soil could be the source of your nutrients in the same way hydroponics works. Granted, the nutrients won't be in large amounts nor will they be quickly replenished, but you have 3 million years worth of soil buildup as well as old trees dying and decaying.



        If there is any fauna, that would add nutrients as well. This would be due to their dragging their own edibles onto the ice, manure, urine, or their own corpse.



        Because of the minimal nutrients, you're likely to see longer lived trees rather than massive forests. Even on Earth, there are trees that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. On this planet, they might be tens of thousands of years old. They may also be really massive, or relatively small for their age. Their growth rings may also be so small as to not really be distinct enough to be rings anymore.



        Once a tree dies, it leaves it's nutrients to it's descendants, so maybe there are pockets of trees as well as large individual trees.






        share|improve this answer










        $endgroup$






















          1
















          $begingroup$


          Could trees adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?




          Plant, like any other form of life we know on Earth, depend on liquid water to perform their biological functions.



          The main issues with a frozen planet surface is that it lacks liquid water, and that the low temperature really slows down biological chemical reactions.



          Moreover, I suspect that after 3 million years of ice age the ice sheet would be rather thick, too thick for whatever root to pierce it starting from the top.






          share|improve this answer










          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Shor
            May 2 at 12:44











          • $begingroup$
            @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
            $endgroup$
            – L.Dutch
            May 2 at 14:41










          • $begingroup$
            @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Shor
            May 2 at 15:20













          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "579"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );














          draft saved

          draft discarded
















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146022%2fwould-glacier-trees-be-plausible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown


























          8 Answers
          8






          active

          oldest

          votes








          8 Answers
          8






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          30
















          $begingroup$

          Maybe seeds isn't the way to go. A seed would be hard-pressed to contain all the nutrients to build deep enough roots.



          Instead, how about one of the many forms of asexual reproduction common in plants, such as vegetative propagation. Basically, a branch of the tree hangs low, touched the ice, begins growing roots until it hits the soil, then the linking branch withers, separating the now-complete plant from its parent.



          Or, scrap the soil idea entirely. As others have said, under so much ice for so long the soil won't be anything to write home about. Plants with their roots in water exist. Maybe your trees' roots melt the ice chemically and drink that up for water. Ice that formed through layers of snowfall won't have much in the way of nutrients naturally, but if your glacier hosts a rich ecosystem with animals and plants living and dying on its surface, it could work. That poses another problem though: either your microbes have evolved beyond the real arctic ones and can decompose the corpses in the icy cold, or your ice is less 'nutrient-rich water, but solid' and more 'sterile, unforgiving ice with pockets of preserved corpses', at which point your plants spread their roots (via chemical melt) through it to find and chemically digest the corpses - like carnivorous plants that eat with their roots.



          That is more of a creeper plant than a tree, though, so you'll need an excuse why the whole bark-tree-thing is needed. And, don't expect them to be pleasant either: the thorns of plants like briars are meant to hook into careless creatures and keep them tangled until they die and fertilise the soil - right where the plant is, not way over there. If the ice tree had to crawl its way through the ice to find ancient corpses that might be there, it would either develop the means to create new ones where they're close and easy to reach, or form a symbiotic relationship with something that does. Your forest floor will be covered in preserved bodies or their husks, mostly those of desperate scavengers that came to feed on the previous ones and proved as unlucky.






          share|improve this answer










          $endgroup$



















            30
















            $begingroup$

            Maybe seeds isn't the way to go. A seed would be hard-pressed to contain all the nutrients to build deep enough roots.



            Instead, how about one of the many forms of asexual reproduction common in plants, such as vegetative propagation. Basically, a branch of the tree hangs low, touched the ice, begins growing roots until it hits the soil, then the linking branch withers, separating the now-complete plant from its parent.



            Or, scrap the soil idea entirely. As others have said, under so much ice for so long the soil won't be anything to write home about. Plants with their roots in water exist. Maybe your trees' roots melt the ice chemically and drink that up for water. Ice that formed through layers of snowfall won't have much in the way of nutrients naturally, but if your glacier hosts a rich ecosystem with animals and plants living and dying on its surface, it could work. That poses another problem though: either your microbes have evolved beyond the real arctic ones and can decompose the corpses in the icy cold, or your ice is less 'nutrient-rich water, but solid' and more 'sterile, unforgiving ice with pockets of preserved corpses', at which point your plants spread their roots (via chemical melt) through it to find and chemically digest the corpses - like carnivorous plants that eat with their roots.



            That is more of a creeper plant than a tree, though, so you'll need an excuse why the whole bark-tree-thing is needed. And, don't expect them to be pleasant either: the thorns of plants like briars are meant to hook into careless creatures and keep them tangled until they die and fertilise the soil - right where the plant is, not way over there. If the ice tree had to crawl its way through the ice to find ancient corpses that might be there, it would either develop the means to create new ones where they're close and easy to reach, or form a symbiotic relationship with something that does. Your forest floor will be covered in preserved bodies or their husks, mostly those of desperate scavengers that came to feed on the previous ones and proved as unlucky.






            share|improve this answer










            $endgroup$

















              30














              30










              30







              $begingroup$

              Maybe seeds isn't the way to go. A seed would be hard-pressed to contain all the nutrients to build deep enough roots.



              Instead, how about one of the many forms of asexual reproduction common in plants, such as vegetative propagation. Basically, a branch of the tree hangs low, touched the ice, begins growing roots until it hits the soil, then the linking branch withers, separating the now-complete plant from its parent.



              Or, scrap the soil idea entirely. As others have said, under so much ice for so long the soil won't be anything to write home about. Plants with their roots in water exist. Maybe your trees' roots melt the ice chemically and drink that up for water. Ice that formed through layers of snowfall won't have much in the way of nutrients naturally, but if your glacier hosts a rich ecosystem with animals and plants living and dying on its surface, it could work. That poses another problem though: either your microbes have evolved beyond the real arctic ones and can decompose the corpses in the icy cold, or your ice is less 'nutrient-rich water, but solid' and more 'sterile, unforgiving ice with pockets of preserved corpses', at which point your plants spread their roots (via chemical melt) through it to find and chemically digest the corpses - like carnivorous plants that eat with their roots.



              That is more of a creeper plant than a tree, though, so you'll need an excuse why the whole bark-tree-thing is needed. And, don't expect them to be pleasant either: the thorns of plants like briars are meant to hook into careless creatures and keep them tangled until they die and fertilise the soil - right where the plant is, not way over there. If the ice tree had to crawl its way through the ice to find ancient corpses that might be there, it would either develop the means to create new ones where they're close and easy to reach, or form a symbiotic relationship with something that does. Your forest floor will be covered in preserved bodies or their husks, mostly those of desperate scavengers that came to feed on the previous ones and proved as unlucky.






              share|improve this answer










              $endgroup$



              Maybe seeds isn't the way to go. A seed would be hard-pressed to contain all the nutrients to build deep enough roots.



              Instead, how about one of the many forms of asexual reproduction common in plants, such as vegetative propagation. Basically, a branch of the tree hangs low, touched the ice, begins growing roots until it hits the soil, then the linking branch withers, separating the now-complete plant from its parent.



              Or, scrap the soil idea entirely. As others have said, under so much ice for so long the soil won't be anything to write home about. Plants with their roots in water exist. Maybe your trees' roots melt the ice chemically and drink that up for water. Ice that formed through layers of snowfall won't have much in the way of nutrients naturally, but if your glacier hosts a rich ecosystem with animals and plants living and dying on its surface, it could work. That poses another problem though: either your microbes have evolved beyond the real arctic ones and can decompose the corpses in the icy cold, or your ice is less 'nutrient-rich water, but solid' and more 'sterile, unforgiving ice with pockets of preserved corpses', at which point your plants spread their roots (via chemical melt) through it to find and chemically digest the corpses - like carnivorous plants that eat with their roots.



              That is more of a creeper plant than a tree, though, so you'll need an excuse why the whole bark-tree-thing is needed. And, don't expect them to be pleasant either: the thorns of plants like briars are meant to hook into careless creatures and keep them tangled until they die and fertilise the soil - right where the plant is, not way over there. If the ice tree had to crawl its way through the ice to find ancient corpses that might be there, it would either develop the means to create new ones where they're close and easy to reach, or form a symbiotic relationship with something that does. Your forest floor will be covered in preserved bodies or their husks, mostly those of desperate scavengers that came to feed on the previous ones and proved as unlucky.







              share|improve this answer













              share|improve this answer




              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Apr 30 at 22:10









              Thanos MaravelThanos Maravel

              4661 silver badge2 bronze badges




              4661 silver badge2 bronze badges


























                  32
















                  $begingroup$

                  Maybe, nature is incredibly inventive, but there are a couple of problems with the basic premise;



                  1. Glaciers "bulldoze" soil out of the way when they move down valley. If there is any major volume of ice around the pre-freeze soils have been pushed off the slopes.


                  2. The glaciers aren't going to stop moving for the trees that are growing through them either. The life expectancy of anything growing through an active glacier is measured in months; the time between first frost (when the glacier freezes to it's bed for the winter) and the thaw (when it starts to move for the spring and summer months). In temperate areas that can have winter rains it's even worse as winter storms can cause short melt spells, and glacial surges, in the otherwise stable cold months.


                  3. They don't have to; trees, in fact whole forests, can and do grow on top of glaciers, soils often form on the lower sections of ice flows, supporting a variety of plant life. I myself have seen willow and poplar growing on soil covered ice near the toe of Fox Glacier in New Zealand and there are pine forests on the lower lobes of a couple of European glaciers.


                  As for roots melting through the ice chemical rather than thermal melting is probably easier to explain, salt excreted from the roots could raise the freezing point sufficiently to thaw down through the ice, water absorption would be automatic due to osmotic pressure.






                  share|improve this answer












                  $endgroup$










                  • 6




                    $begingroup$
                    +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Alexandre Aubrey
                    May 1 at 14:40






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                    $endgroup$
                    – llama
                    May 1 at 17:26










                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Peter Shor
                    May 2 at 12:41











                  • $begingroup$
                    The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                    $endgroup$
                    – David Richerby
                    May 2 at 17:16






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ash
                    May 5 at 18:11















                  32
















                  $begingroup$

                  Maybe, nature is incredibly inventive, but there are a couple of problems with the basic premise;



                  1. Glaciers "bulldoze" soil out of the way when they move down valley. If there is any major volume of ice around the pre-freeze soils have been pushed off the slopes.


                  2. The glaciers aren't going to stop moving for the trees that are growing through them either. The life expectancy of anything growing through an active glacier is measured in months; the time between first frost (when the glacier freezes to it's bed for the winter) and the thaw (when it starts to move for the spring and summer months). In temperate areas that can have winter rains it's even worse as winter storms can cause short melt spells, and glacial surges, in the otherwise stable cold months.


                  3. They don't have to; trees, in fact whole forests, can and do grow on top of glaciers, soils often form on the lower sections of ice flows, supporting a variety of plant life. I myself have seen willow and poplar growing on soil covered ice near the toe of Fox Glacier in New Zealand and there are pine forests on the lower lobes of a couple of European glaciers.


                  As for roots melting through the ice chemical rather than thermal melting is probably easier to explain, salt excreted from the roots could raise the freezing point sufficiently to thaw down through the ice, water absorption would be automatic due to osmotic pressure.






                  share|improve this answer












                  $endgroup$










                  • 6




                    $begingroup$
                    +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Alexandre Aubrey
                    May 1 at 14:40






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                    $endgroup$
                    – llama
                    May 1 at 17:26










                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Peter Shor
                    May 2 at 12:41











                  • $begingroup$
                    The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                    $endgroup$
                    – David Richerby
                    May 2 at 17:16






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ash
                    May 5 at 18:11













                  32














                  32










                  32







                  $begingroup$

                  Maybe, nature is incredibly inventive, but there are a couple of problems with the basic premise;



                  1. Glaciers "bulldoze" soil out of the way when they move down valley. If there is any major volume of ice around the pre-freeze soils have been pushed off the slopes.


                  2. The glaciers aren't going to stop moving for the trees that are growing through them either. The life expectancy of anything growing through an active glacier is measured in months; the time between first frost (when the glacier freezes to it's bed for the winter) and the thaw (when it starts to move for the spring and summer months). In temperate areas that can have winter rains it's even worse as winter storms can cause short melt spells, and glacial surges, in the otherwise stable cold months.


                  3. They don't have to; trees, in fact whole forests, can and do grow on top of glaciers, soils often form on the lower sections of ice flows, supporting a variety of plant life. I myself have seen willow and poplar growing on soil covered ice near the toe of Fox Glacier in New Zealand and there are pine forests on the lower lobes of a couple of European glaciers.


                  As for roots melting through the ice chemical rather than thermal melting is probably easier to explain, salt excreted from the roots could raise the freezing point sufficiently to thaw down through the ice, water absorption would be automatic due to osmotic pressure.






                  share|improve this answer












                  $endgroup$



                  Maybe, nature is incredibly inventive, but there are a couple of problems with the basic premise;



                  1. Glaciers "bulldoze" soil out of the way when they move down valley. If there is any major volume of ice around the pre-freeze soils have been pushed off the slopes.


                  2. The glaciers aren't going to stop moving for the trees that are growing through them either. The life expectancy of anything growing through an active glacier is measured in months; the time between first frost (when the glacier freezes to it's bed for the winter) and the thaw (when it starts to move for the spring and summer months). In temperate areas that can have winter rains it's even worse as winter storms can cause short melt spells, and glacial surges, in the otherwise stable cold months.


                  3. They don't have to; trees, in fact whole forests, can and do grow on top of glaciers, soils often form on the lower sections of ice flows, supporting a variety of plant life. I myself have seen willow and poplar growing on soil covered ice near the toe of Fox Glacier in New Zealand and there are pine forests on the lower lobes of a couple of European glaciers.


                  As for roots melting through the ice chemical rather than thermal melting is probably easier to explain, salt excreted from the roots could raise the freezing point sufficiently to thaw down through the ice, water absorption would be automatic due to osmotic pressure.







                  share|improve this answer















                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited May 1 at 17:31

























                  answered Apr 30 at 17:02









                  AshAsh

                  34.4k5 gold badges80 silver badges183 bronze badges




                  34.4k5 gold badges80 silver badges183 bronze badges










                  • 6




                    $begingroup$
                    +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Alexandre Aubrey
                    May 1 at 14:40






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                    $endgroup$
                    – llama
                    May 1 at 17:26










                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Peter Shor
                    May 2 at 12:41











                  • $begingroup$
                    The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                    $endgroup$
                    – David Richerby
                    May 2 at 17:16






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ash
                    May 5 at 18:11












                  • 6




                    $begingroup$
                    +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Alexandre Aubrey
                    May 1 at 14:40






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                    $endgroup$
                    – llama
                    May 1 at 17:26










                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Peter Shor
                    May 2 at 12:41











                  • $begingroup$
                    The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                    $endgroup$
                    – David Richerby
                    May 2 at 17:16






                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Ash
                    May 5 at 18:11







                  6




                  6




                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Alexandre Aubrey
                  May 1 at 14:40




                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for point number 1. If you had roots going all the way down through the glacier, they'd be destroyed in no time.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Alexandre Aubrey
                  May 1 at 14:40




                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                  $endgroup$
                  – llama
                  May 1 at 17:26




                  $begingroup$
                  Ash, I'm not sure if you're actually making the point that @AlexandreAubrey is thinking of (and which was my first objection): If the tree extends from leaves at the top of the glacier to roots at the bottom, the flow of the glacier (up to hundreds of metres per year) is going to rip them apart from each other. I think explicitly stating that would improve this answer
                  $endgroup$
                  – llama
                  May 1 at 17:26












                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                  $endgroup$
                  – Peter Shor
                  May 2 at 12:41





                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for the chemical melting idea (although salts might not be the right chemical melter; the plant has to find the salts, and sodium/potassium might be rare enough on ice that they shouldn't be wasted. But there could be organic ice-melters, like alcohol.)
                  $endgroup$
                  – Peter Shor
                  May 2 at 12:41













                  $begingroup$
                  The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                  $endgroup$
                  – David Richerby
                  May 2 at 17:16




                  $begingroup$
                  The only chemicals available to a plant are the things it draws up through its roots and the things it makes starting with photosynthesis. If the roots are in ice, you obviously can't use stuff drawn up through the roots to melt that ice, so any chemical melting is going to have to be via organic compounds made by the tree itself.
                  $endgroup$
                  – David Richerby
                  May 2 at 17:16




                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ash
                  May 5 at 18:11




                  $begingroup$
                  @DavidRicherby See my third point, trees don't need any special adaptations to grow on glaciers.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Ash
                  May 5 at 18:11











                  28
















                  $begingroup$

                  Up from below.



                  knotweed breakin thru pavement
                  https://morgan-outdoors.com/?p=1443



                  Your glacier trees can take some pages from the playbook of the invasive Japanese knotweed, famous for its ability to break its way up through concrete.



                  1. Your plants establish on the edge of the glacier. Runoff provides liquid water. The soil is good. Organic nitrogen is in short supply but these plants can fix their own nitrogen.


                  2. They put down deep roots. Knotweed roots are 5 meters down. The soil next to a glacier facilitates this.


                  3. They spread out in a clonal patch; if these are trees then like an aspen clone. Plants come up thru the adjacent ice.


                  4. As new roots are laid down deeper into the ice field, the plant can encroach its way into the ice. Ice is broken as it goes. If this just an ice field, the plant will facilitate the dissolution of the ice. If this is a flowing glacier then it will fight back.


                  This sidesteps the issue of nitrogen and puts your plants over and under the ice.



                  Last piece: slider seeds.



                  These are big seeds, like coconut. They have enough resources in each seed to establish a hardy well rooted plant on minimal resources, like the coconut does for a sandy beach. These big seeds have sails and slide or tumble across the ice fields until they hit a low point and lodge. If this is a fissure or a bare patch or somewhere with access to the soil then the tree can get established and start a new clone.



                  Maybe instead of just seeds, during storms entire trees can break off from the clone and slide across the ice. Knotweed can definitely break off and take root in a new place from loose fragments with associated resources. . With access to water it can cannibalize its parts to grow the deep root needed to establish itself deeper in the ice field.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$










                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 16:24






                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                    $endgroup$
                    – The Nate
                    Apr 30 at 23:02






                  • 7




                    $begingroup$
                    One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – cowlinator
                    Apr 30 at 23:21















                  28
















                  $begingroup$

                  Up from below.



                  knotweed breakin thru pavement
                  https://morgan-outdoors.com/?p=1443



                  Your glacier trees can take some pages from the playbook of the invasive Japanese knotweed, famous for its ability to break its way up through concrete.



                  1. Your plants establish on the edge of the glacier. Runoff provides liquid water. The soil is good. Organic nitrogen is in short supply but these plants can fix their own nitrogen.


                  2. They put down deep roots. Knotweed roots are 5 meters down. The soil next to a glacier facilitates this.


                  3. They spread out in a clonal patch; if these are trees then like an aspen clone. Plants come up thru the adjacent ice.


                  4. As new roots are laid down deeper into the ice field, the plant can encroach its way into the ice. Ice is broken as it goes. If this just an ice field, the plant will facilitate the dissolution of the ice. If this is a flowing glacier then it will fight back.


                  This sidesteps the issue of nitrogen and puts your plants over and under the ice.



                  Last piece: slider seeds.



                  These are big seeds, like coconut. They have enough resources in each seed to establish a hardy well rooted plant on minimal resources, like the coconut does for a sandy beach. These big seeds have sails and slide or tumble across the ice fields until they hit a low point and lodge. If this is a fissure or a bare patch or somewhere with access to the soil then the tree can get established and start a new clone.



                  Maybe instead of just seeds, during storms entire trees can break off from the clone and slide across the ice. Knotweed can definitely break off and take root in a new place from loose fragments with associated resources. . With access to water it can cannibalize its parts to grow the deep root needed to establish itself deeper in the ice field.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$










                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 16:24






                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                    $endgroup$
                    – The Nate
                    Apr 30 at 23:02






                  • 7




                    $begingroup$
                    One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – cowlinator
                    Apr 30 at 23:21













                  28














                  28










                  28







                  $begingroup$

                  Up from below.



                  knotweed breakin thru pavement
                  https://morgan-outdoors.com/?p=1443



                  Your glacier trees can take some pages from the playbook of the invasive Japanese knotweed, famous for its ability to break its way up through concrete.



                  1. Your plants establish on the edge of the glacier. Runoff provides liquid water. The soil is good. Organic nitrogen is in short supply but these plants can fix their own nitrogen.


                  2. They put down deep roots. Knotweed roots are 5 meters down. The soil next to a glacier facilitates this.


                  3. They spread out in a clonal patch; if these are trees then like an aspen clone. Plants come up thru the adjacent ice.


                  4. As new roots are laid down deeper into the ice field, the plant can encroach its way into the ice. Ice is broken as it goes. If this just an ice field, the plant will facilitate the dissolution of the ice. If this is a flowing glacier then it will fight back.


                  This sidesteps the issue of nitrogen and puts your plants over and under the ice.



                  Last piece: slider seeds.



                  These are big seeds, like coconut. They have enough resources in each seed to establish a hardy well rooted plant on minimal resources, like the coconut does for a sandy beach. These big seeds have sails and slide or tumble across the ice fields until they hit a low point and lodge. If this is a fissure or a bare patch or somewhere with access to the soil then the tree can get established and start a new clone.



                  Maybe instead of just seeds, during storms entire trees can break off from the clone and slide across the ice. Knotweed can definitely break off and take root in a new place from loose fragments with associated resources. . With access to water it can cannibalize its parts to grow the deep root needed to establish itself deeper in the ice field.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$



                  Up from below.



                  knotweed breakin thru pavement
                  https://morgan-outdoors.com/?p=1443



                  Your glacier trees can take some pages from the playbook of the invasive Japanese knotweed, famous for its ability to break its way up through concrete.



                  1. Your plants establish on the edge of the glacier. Runoff provides liquid water. The soil is good. Organic nitrogen is in short supply but these plants can fix their own nitrogen.


                  2. They put down deep roots. Knotweed roots are 5 meters down. The soil next to a glacier facilitates this.


                  3. They spread out in a clonal patch; if these are trees then like an aspen clone. Plants come up thru the adjacent ice.


                  4. As new roots are laid down deeper into the ice field, the plant can encroach its way into the ice. Ice is broken as it goes. If this just an ice field, the plant will facilitate the dissolution of the ice. If this is a flowing glacier then it will fight back.


                  This sidesteps the issue of nitrogen and puts your plants over and under the ice.



                  Last piece: slider seeds.



                  These are big seeds, like coconut. They have enough resources in each seed to establish a hardy well rooted plant on minimal resources, like the coconut does for a sandy beach. These big seeds have sails and slide or tumble across the ice fields until they hit a low point and lodge. If this is a fissure or a bare patch or somewhere with access to the soil then the tree can get established and start a new clone.



                  Maybe instead of just seeds, during storms entire trees can break off from the clone and slide across the ice. Knotweed can definitely break off and take root in a new place from loose fragments with associated resources. . With access to water it can cannibalize its parts to grow the deep root needed to establish itself deeper in the ice field.







                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 30 at 15:25









                  WillkWillk

                  141k34 gold badges264 silver badges583 bronze badges




                  141k34 gold badges264 silver badges583 bronze badges










                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 16:24






                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                    $endgroup$
                    – The Nate
                    Apr 30 at 23:02






                  • 7




                    $begingroup$
                    One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – cowlinator
                    Apr 30 at 23:21












                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 16:24






                  • 2




                    $begingroup$
                    It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                    $endgroup$
                    – The Nate
                    Apr 30 at 23:02






                  • 7




                    $begingroup$
                    One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                    $endgroup$
                    – cowlinator
                    Apr 30 at 23:21







                  2




                  2




                  $begingroup$
                  Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                  $endgroup$
                  – Joe Bloggs
                  Apr 30 at 16:24




                  $begingroup$
                  Clonal colonies... Nice! +1
                  $endgroup$
                  – Joe Bloggs
                  Apr 30 at 16:24




                  2




                  2




                  $begingroup$
                  It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                  $endgroup$
                  – The Nate
                  Apr 30 at 23:02




                  $begingroup$
                  It's worth looking at the banyan model as well.
                  $endgroup$
                  – The Nate
                  Apr 30 at 23:02




                  7




                  7




                  $begingroup$
                  One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                  $endgroup$
                  – cowlinator
                  Apr 30 at 23:21




                  $begingroup$
                  One thing to note, glaciers can often be very thick (a.k.a. tall), so your trees might have to grow very tall and break through a LOT of ice; or else they have to be restricted to thinner parts of glaciers.
                  $endgroup$
                  – cowlinator
                  Apr 30 at 23:21











                  13
















                  $begingroup$

                  Fertile soil is fertile, because it contains nutrients, and nutrients come from decomposed organic matter. If the place is covered in ice for 3mln years, and all organisms which live there live on the top of the glacier, I'm afraid the soil beneath it can't be fertile.
                  Unless there is something else going on, like for example another ecosystem of organisms living under the ice. But in that case you would need much more than three million years for the evolution to make it work.



                  Back to your main question: Ice thickness on Antarctica, as well as thickness of glaciers during the most recent ice age, was about 2-4km. Trees growing 2-4km long roots from a single seed would be very difficult to rationalize, since only after touching the fertile soil beneath the tree would be able to get additional resources to build itself.
                  Maybe you can say that the seed builds a carbon nanotube, drills it through the ice, and then sucks in nutrients and water. But again, three million years is not enough to evolve something like that. To be honest, I don't think any number of years would be enough - your readers will think you're just hand-waving things. Instead, maybe, the "seeds" could in reality be complex nanomechanisms, planted on the planet by an advanced civilization. The trees that grow out of them are real trees in every aspect except for that their own new seeds are really built by nanobots living inside them.



                  I hope that helps.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$










                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 15:22







                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                    $endgroup$
                    – nigel222
                    May 1 at 12:05










                  • $begingroup$
                    nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                    $endgroup$
                    – makingthematrix
                    May 4 at 18:33















                  13
















                  $begingroup$

                  Fertile soil is fertile, because it contains nutrients, and nutrients come from decomposed organic matter. If the place is covered in ice for 3mln years, and all organisms which live there live on the top of the glacier, I'm afraid the soil beneath it can't be fertile.
                  Unless there is something else going on, like for example another ecosystem of organisms living under the ice. But in that case you would need much more than three million years for the evolution to make it work.



                  Back to your main question: Ice thickness on Antarctica, as well as thickness of glaciers during the most recent ice age, was about 2-4km. Trees growing 2-4km long roots from a single seed would be very difficult to rationalize, since only after touching the fertile soil beneath the tree would be able to get additional resources to build itself.
                  Maybe you can say that the seed builds a carbon nanotube, drills it through the ice, and then sucks in nutrients and water. But again, three million years is not enough to evolve something like that. To be honest, I don't think any number of years would be enough - your readers will think you're just hand-waving things. Instead, maybe, the "seeds" could in reality be complex nanomechanisms, planted on the planet by an advanced civilization. The trees that grow out of them are real trees in every aspect except for that their own new seeds are really built by nanobots living inside them.



                  I hope that helps.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$










                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 15:22







                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                    $endgroup$
                    – nigel222
                    May 1 at 12:05










                  • $begingroup$
                    nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                    $endgroup$
                    – makingthematrix
                    May 4 at 18:33













                  13














                  13










                  13







                  $begingroup$

                  Fertile soil is fertile, because it contains nutrients, and nutrients come from decomposed organic matter. If the place is covered in ice for 3mln years, and all organisms which live there live on the top of the glacier, I'm afraid the soil beneath it can't be fertile.
                  Unless there is something else going on, like for example another ecosystem of organisms living under the ice. But in that case you would need much more than three million years for the evolution to make it work.



                  Back to your main question: Ice thickness on Antarctica, as well as thickness of glaciers during the most recent ice age, was about 2-4km. Trees growing 2-4km long roots from a single seed would be very difficult to rationalize, since only after touching the fertile soil beneath the tree would be able to get additional resources to build itself.
                  Maybe you can say that the seed builds a carbon nanotube, drills it through the ice, and then sucks in nutrients and water. But again, three million years is not enough to evolve something like that. To be honest, I don't think any number of years would be enough - your readers will think you're just hand-waving things. Instead, maybe, the "seeds" could in reality be complex nanomechanisms, planted on the planet by an advanced civilization. The trees that grow out of them are real trees in every aspect except for that their own new seeds are really built by nanobots living inside them.



                  I hope that helps.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$



                  Fertile soil is fertile, because it contains nutrients, and nutrients come from decomposed organic matter. If the place is covered in ice for 3mln years, and all organisms which live there live on the top of the glacier, I'm afraid the soil beneath it can't be fertile.
                  Unless there is something else going on, like for example another ecosystem of organisms living under the ice. But in that case you would need much more than three million years for the evolution to make it work.



                  Back to your main question: Ice thickness on Antarctica, as well as thickness of glaciers during the most recent ice age, was about 2-4km. Trees growing 2-4km long roots from a single seed would be very difficult to rationalize, since only after touching the fertile soil beneath the tree would be able to get additional resources to build itself.
                  Maybe you can say that the seed builds a carbon nanotube, drills it through the ice, and then sucks in nutrients and water. But again, three million years is not enough to evolve something like that. To be honest, I don't think any number of years would be enough - your readers will think you're just hand-waving things. Instead, maybe, the "seeds" could in reality be complex nanomechanisms, planted on the planet by an advanced civilization. The trees that grow out of them are real trees in every aspect except for that their own new seeds are really built by nanobots living inside them.



                  I hope that helps.







                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer




                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 30 at 15:15









                  makingthematrixmakingthematrix

                  1,2996 silver badges12 bronze badges




                  1,2996 silver badges12 bronze badges










                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 15:22







                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                    $endgroup$
                    – nigel222
                    May 1 at 12:05










                  • $begingroup$
                    nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                    $endgroup$
                    – makingthematrix
                    May 4 at 18:33












                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 30 at 15:22







                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                    $endgroup$
                    – nigel222
                    May 1 at 12:05










                  • $begingroup$
                    nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                    $endgroup$
                    – makingthematrix
                    May 4 at 18:33







                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Joe Bloggs
                  Apr 30 at 15:22





                  $begingroup$
                  How do you know life as we know it isn’t built of complex nanomechanisms designed by an advanced civilisation to serve some unfathomable purpose??? #existentialcrisisoverhere.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Joe Bloggs
                  Apr 30 at 15:22





                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                  $endgroup$
                  – nigel222
                  May 1 at 12:05




                  $begingroup$
                  There are plants which grow in the least promising of soils, or out of the smallest fissures in bare rock. Some die when the soil becomes too fertile for them. Some just grow even better, and become known as invasive weeds. Plants don't require any organic matter in their soil. The vast majority of a plant is built out of carbon dioxide from the air, water, and nitrogen (which can be fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria). They just need small amounts of various mineral nutrients which dissolve out of rocks (sometimes with help from the plant).
                  $endgroup$
                  – nigel222
                  May 1 at 12:05












                  $begingroup$
                  nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                  $endgroup$
                  – makingthematrix
                  May 4 at 18:33




                  $begingroup$
                  nigel222: To be able to use nutrients and CO2, the plant has to be already developed. When it's a seed, all the building blocks of a plant, except air and water, have to be contained inside it. Environment triggers the seed to open, but during the first phase of growing the plant has to use what's there in the seed. Only when the root finds nutrients in the soil, they can be used for further growth. In this case, the plant lacks nutrients until it digs through a thick layer of ice. It needs to build a very long and strong root from the seed, and it needs lots of energy to dig through the ice.
                  $endgroup$
                  – makingthematrix
                  May 4 at 18:33











                  8
















                  $begingroup$

                  Lightning trees!



                  The first law of living in extreme environments is: never expend resources you don’t have to. In your case, why do hard work getting down to the soil if you can get a lightning storm to do it for you?



                  Assuming that some part of the year, the surface temperature is above freezing (or you can’t have plant life anyways) your glacial plateaus will have lightning storms, with liquid water coming down, to boot.



                  Ice is a terrible conductor, and your trees are a tall and jutting path to ground. Cue:



                  enter image description here



                  “Ah!” but you say, “But then my tree has exploded!”



                  Well, that’s okay. That’s exactly what your tree wanted! It’s an active pyrophyte.
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte



                  So it explodes, and sends chunks of itself skittering around the whole damn surface of the glacier! Maybe like eucalyptus trees, its entire canopy can detach and get blown miles away... where it attracts a second lightning strike, which cracks and melts a path down to the soil beneath, where your pyrophyte seeds happily settle in to grow in newly wet soil.






                  share|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$



















                    8
















                    $begingroup$

                    Lightning trees!



                    The first law of living in extreme environments is: never expend resources you don’t have to. In your case, why do hard work getting down to the soil if you can get a lightning storm to do it for you?



                    Assuming that some part of the year, the surface temperature is above freezing (or you can’t have plant life anyways) your glacial plateaus will have lightning storms, with liquid water coming down, to boot.



                    Ice is a terrible conductor, and your trees are a tall and jutting path to ground. Cue:



                    enter image description here



                    “Ah!” but you say, “But then my tree has exploded!”



                    Well, that’s okay. That’s exactly what your tree wanted! It’s an active pyrophyte.
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte



                    So it explodes, and sends chunks of itself skittering around the whole damn surface of the glacier! Maybe like eucalyptus trees, its entire canopy can detach and get blown miles away... where it attracts a second lightning strike, which cracks and melts a path down to the soil beneath, where your pyrophyte seeds happily settle in to grow in newly wet soil.






                    share|improve this answer










                    $endgroup$

















                      8














                      8










                      8







                      $begingroup$

                      Lightning trees!



                      The first law of living in extreme environments is: never expend resources you don’t have to. In your case, why do hard work getting down to the soil if you can get a lightning storm to do it for you?



                      Assuming that some part of the year, the surface temperature is above freezing (or you can’t have plant life anyways) your glacial plateaus will have lightning storms, with liquid water coming down, to boot.



                      Ice is a terrible conductor, and your trees are a tall and jutting path to ground. Cue:



                      enter image description here



                      “Ah!” but you say, “But then my tree has exploded!”



                      Well, that’s okay. That’s exactly what your tree wanted! It’s an active pyrophyte.
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte



                      So it explodes, and sends chunks of itself skittering around the whole damn surface of the glacier! Maybe like eucalyptus trees, its entire canopy can detach and get blown miles away... where it attracts a second lightning strike, which cracks and melts a path down to the soil beneath, where your pyrophyte seeds happily settle in to grow in newly wet soil.






                      share|improve this answer










                      $endgroup$



                      Lightning trees!



                      The first law of living in extreme environments is: never expend resources you don’t have to. In your case, why do hard work getting down to the soil if you can get a lightning storm to do it for you?



                      Assuming that some part of the year, the surface temperature is above freezing (or you can’t have plant life anyways) your glacial plateaus will have lightning storms, with liquid water coming down, to boot.



                      Ice is a terrible conductor, and your trees are a tall and jutting path to ground. Cue:



                      enter image description here



                      “Ah!” but you say, “But then my tree has exploded!”



                      Well, that’s okay. That’s exactly what your tree wanted! It’s an active pyrophyte.
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte



                      So it explodes, and sends chunks of itself skittering around the whole damn surface of the glacier! Maybe like eucalyptus trees, its entire canopy can detach and get blown miles away... where it attracts a second lightning strike, which cracks and melts a path down to the soil beneath, where your pyrophyte seeds happily settle in to grow in newly wet soil.







                      share|improve this answer













                      share|improve this answer




                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered May 1 at 3:25









                      Daniel BDaniel B

                      6,0821 gold badge11 silver badges30 bronze badges




                      6,0821 gold badge11 silver badges30 bronze badges
























                          3
















                          $begingroup$

                          The main issue with roots going all the way through the glacier is that glaciers move.



                          More importantly, they move through deformation. This means that the base of the glacier is moving at a different speed than the surface. A solid object going all the way through the glacier (e.g. root) will get stretched, torn, and destroyed.



                          Many other answers provide alternatives that would still allow you to have a glacier covered in forest.






                          share|improve this answer










                          $endgroup$



















                            3
















                            $begingroup$

                            The main issue with roots going all the way through the glacier is that glaciers move.



                            More importantly, they move through deformation. This means that the base of the glacier is moving at a different speed than the surface. A solid object going all the way through the glacier (e.g. root) will get stretched, torn, and destroyed.



                            Many other answers provide alternatives that would still allow you to have a glacier covered in forest.






                            share|improve this answer










                            $endgroup$

















                              3














                              3










                              3







                              $begingroup$

                              The main issue with roots going all the way through the glacier is that glaciers move.



                              More importantly, they move through deformation. This means that the base of the glacier is moving at a different speed than the surface. A solid object going all the way through the glacier (e.g. root) will get stretched, torn, and destroyed.



                              Many other answers provide alternatives that would still allow you to have a glacier covered in forest.






                              share|improve this answer










                              $endgroup$



                              The main issue with roots going all the way through the glacier is that glaciers move.



                              More importantly, they move through deformation. This means that the base of the glacier is moving at a different speed than the surface. A solid object going all the way through the glacier (e.g. root) will get stretched, torn, and destroyed.



                              Many other answers provide alternatives that would still allow you to have a glacier covered in forest.







                              share|improve this answer













                              share|improve this answer




                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered May 1 at 14:50









                              Alexandre AubreyAlexandre Aubrey

                              1,3723 silver badges9 bronze badges




                              1,3723 silver badges9 bronze badges
























                                  2
















                                  $begingroup$

                                  Not all glaciers are sparkling white. Some are dirty, in that they contain a certain amount of soil. The soil could be churned up from the ground the glacier flows over and rises to the top, or it can be deposited by other means, such as wind storms or volcanic eruptions.



                                  This soil could be the source of your nutrients in the same way hydroponics works. Granted, the nutrients won't be in large amounts nor will they be quickly replenished, but you have 3 million years worth of soil buildup as well as old trees dying and decaying.



                                  If there is any fauna, that would add nutrients as well. This would be due to their dragging their own edibles onto the ice, manure, urine, or their own corpse.



                                  Because of the minimal nutrients, you're likely to see longer lived trees rather than massive forests. Even on Earth, there are trees that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. On this planet, they might be tens of thousands of years old. They may also be really massive, or relatively small for their age. Their growth rings may also be so small as to not really be distinct enough to be rings anymore.



                                  Once a tree dies, it leaves it's nutrients to it's descendants, so maybe there are pockets of trees as well as large individual trees.






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  $endgroup$



















                                    2
















                                    $begingroup$

                                    Not all glaciers are sparkling white. Some are dirty, in that they contain a certain amount of soil. The soil could be churned up from the ground the glacier flows over and rises to the top, or it can be deposited by other means, such as wind storms or volcanic eruptions.



                                    This soil could be the source of your nutrients in the same way hydroponics works. Granted, the nutrients won't be in large amounts nor will they be quickly replenished, but you have 3 million years worth of soil buildup as well as old trees dying and decaying.



                                    If there is any fauna, that would add nutrients as well. This would be due to their dragging their own edibles onto the ice, manure, urine, or their own corpse.



                                    Because of the minimal nutrients, you're likely to see longer lived trees rather than massive forests. Even on Earth, there are trees that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. On this planet, they might be tens of thousands of years old. They may also be really massive, or relatively small for their age. Their growth rings may also be so small as to not really be distinct enough to be rings anymore.



                                    Once a tree dies, it leaves it's nutrients to it's descendants, so maybe there are pockets of trees as well as large individual trees.






                                    share|improve this answer










                                    $endgroup$

















                                      2














                                      2










                                      2







                                      $begingroup$

                                      Not all glaciers are sparkling white. Some are dirty, in that they contain a certain amount of soil. The soil could be churned up from the ground the glacier flows over and rises to the top, or it can be deposited by other means, such as wind storms or volcanic eruptions.



                                      This soil could be the source of your nutrients in the same way hydroponics works. Granted, the nutrients won't be in large amounts nor will they be quickly replenished, but you have 3 million years worth of soil buildup as well as old trees dying and decaying.



                                      If there is any fauna, that would add nutrients as well. This would be due to their dragging their own edibles onto the ice, manure, urine, or their own corpse.



                                      Because of the minimal nutrients, you're likely to see longer lived trees rather than massive forests. Even on Earth, there are trees that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. On this planet, they might be tens of thousands of years old. They may also be really massive, or relatively small for their age. Their growth rings may also be so small as to not really be distinct enough to be rings anymore.



                                      Once a tree dies, it leaves it's nutrients to it's descendants, so maybe there are pockets of trees as well as large individual trees.






                                      share|improve this answer










                                      $endgroup$



                                      Not all glaciers are sparkling white. Some are dirty, in that they contain a certain amount of soil. The soil could be churned up from the ground the glacier flows over and rises to the top, or it can be deposited by other means, such as wind storms or volcanic eruptions.



                                      This soil could be the source of your nutrients in the same way hydroponics works. Granted, the nutrients won't be in large amounts nor will they be quickly replenished, but you have 3 million years worth of soil buildup as well as old trees dying and decaying.



                                      If there is any fauna, that would add nutrients as well. This would be due to their dragging their own edibles onto the ice, manure, urine, or their own corpse.



                                      Because of the minimal nutrients, you're likely to see longer lived trees rather than massive forests. Even on Earth, there are trees that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. On this planet, they might be tens of thousands of years old. They may also be really massive, or relatively small for their age. Their growth rings may also be so small as to not really be distinct enough to be rings anymore.



                                      Once a tree dies, it leaves it's nutrients to it's descendants, so maybe there are pockets of trees as well as large individual trees.







                                      share|improve this answer













                                      share|improve this answer




                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered May 1 at 22:29









                                      computercarguycomputercarguy

                                      2,5572 silver badges15 bronze badges




                                      2,5572 silver badges15 bronze badges
























                                          1
















                                          $begingroup$


                                          Could trees adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?




                                          Plant, like any other form of life we know on Earth, depend on liquid water to perform their biological functions.



                                          The main issues with a frozen planet surface is that it lacks liquid water, and that the low temperature really slows down biological chemical reactions.



                                          Moreover, I suspect that after 3 million years of ice age the ice sheet would be rather thick, too thick for whatever root to pierce it starting from the top.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          $endgroup$














                                          • $begingroup$
                                            There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 12:44











                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – L.Dutch
                                            May 2 at 14:41










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 15:20
















                                          1
















                                          $begingroup$


                                          Could trees adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?




                                          Plant, like any other form of life we know on Earth, depend on liquid water to perform their biological functions.



                                          The main issues with a frozen planet surface is that it lacks liquid water, and that the low temperature really slows down biological chemical reactions.



                                          Moreover, I suspect that after 3 million years of ice age the ice sheet would be rather thick, too thick for whatever root to pierce it starting from the top.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          $endgroup$














                                          • $begingroup$
                                            There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 12:44











                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – L.Dutch
                                            May 2 at 14:41










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 15:20














                                          1














                                          1










                                          1







                                          $begingroup$


                                          Could trees adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?




                                          Plant, like any other form of life we know on Earth, depend on liquid water to perform their biological functions.



                                          The main issues with a frozen planet surface is that it lacks liquid water, and that the low temperature really slows down biological chemical reactions.



                                          Moreover, I suspect that after 3 million years of ice age the ice sheet would be rather thick, too thick for whatever root to pierce it starting from the top.






                                          share|improve this answer










                                          $endgroup$




                                          Could trees adapt to grow down through the ice and snow to reach the fertile soil beneath?




                                          Plant, like any other form of life we know on Earth, depend on liquid water to perform their biological functions.



                                          The main issues with a frozen planet surface is that it lacks liquid water, and that the low temperature really slows down biological chemical reactions.



                                          Moreover, I suspect that after 3 million years of ice age the ice sheet would be rather thick, too thick for whatever root to pierce it starting from the top.







                                          share|improve this answer













                                          share|improve this answer




                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer










                                          answered Apr 30 at 15:07









                                          L.DutchL.Dutch

                                          116k35 gold badges267 silver badges549 bronze badges




                                          116k35 gold badges267 silver badges549 bronze badges














                                          • $begingroup$
                                            There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 12:44











                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – L.Dutch
                                            May 2 at 14:41










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 15:20

















                                          • $begingroup$
                                            There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 12:44











                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – L.Dutch
                                            May 2 at 14:41










                                          • $begingroup$
                                            @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                            $endgroup$
                                            – Peter Shor
                                            May 2 at 15:20
















                                          $begingroup$
                                          There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Peter Shor
                                          May 2 at 12:44





                                          $begingroup$
                                          There are very easy ways to get liquid water from ice. The only question would be whether the plant can produce enough energy to use them. Maybe the plant can use photosynthesis for this – how bright is the sun? And there are fish that live in freezing water, and their chemical actions seem to proceed quickly enough for them not to die (although they have adapted to this environment through evolution).
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Peter Shor
                                          May 2 at 12:44













                                          $begingroup$
                                          @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – L.Dutch
                                          May 2 at 14:41




                                          $begingroup$
                                          @PeterShor, if plants could use photosynthesis to melt ice there would be no ice in first place
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – L.Dutch
                                          May 2 at 14:41












                                          $begingroup$
                                          @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Peter Shor
                                          May 2 at 15:20





                                          $begingroup$
                                          @L. Dutch: Have you ever heard of skunk cabbage? What is the albedo of ice? What is the albedo of plants? And if you collect the sunlight that falls on one square meter of ice, does it contain enough energy to melt 10 cubic centimers of it? I'm not suggesting that the plants should melt the entire glacier, just enough to get some liquid water.
                                          $endgroup$
                                          – Peter Shor
                                          May 2 at 15:20



















                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f146022%2fwould-glacier-trees-be-plausible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown









                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Distance measures on a map of a game The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inmin distance in a graphShortest distance path on contour plotHow to plot a tilted map?Finding points outside of a diskDelaunay link distanceAnnulus from GeoDisks: drawing a ring on a mapNegative Correlation DistanceFind distance along a path (GPS coordinates)Finding position at given distance in a GeoPathMathematics behind distance estimation using camera

                                          How to get a smooth, uniform ParametricPlot of a 2D Region?How to plot a complicated Region?How to exclude a region from ParametricPlotHow discretize a region placing vertices on a specific non-uniform gridHow to transform a Plot or a ParametricPlot into a RegionHow can I get a smooth plot of a bounded region?Smooth ParametricPlot3D with RegionFunction?Smooth border of a region ParametricPlotSmooth region boundarySmooth region plot from list of pointsGet minimum y of a certain x in a region

                                          Genealogie vun de Merowenger Vum Merowech bis zum Chilperich I. | Navigatiounsmenü