Timeline for On a glassed landmass, how long would it take for plants to grow?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9 at 11:51 | comment | added | Some Guy | You can look at this video to see the huge piles of ash and rocks that were thrown out of the mountain onto nearby areas and still exist in the area to this day. Much of it has been covered by a thin layer of plant life at this point, but that doesn't change the fact that what spewed out of the mountain was far more than "a thin layer of ash". It was a MASSIVE landslide of stone (the entire side of the mountain!), followed by an explosion of superheated supersonic boulders, rocks, gravel, ash, etc. of various sizes and compositions. youtube.com/watch?v=cOFKwCELHw8 | |
| Oct 9 at 11:23 | comment | added | Some Guy | The claim that 12 feet or more of ash "went down the river in the first rainfall" is simply not even close to accurate. Most of the deposited ash was not immediately adjacent to a stream or river. It compacts, settles, and solidifies when wet, just like dust or sand, and hence is no more likely to get washed away. I was in that region a few months ago (north side of Mt. St. Helens, close to the mountain and inside the blast zone), and large regions of ash were still visible on the flat plains surrounding the mountain. Much of the ash has even been stabilized by plant growth at this point. | |
| Oct 8 at 11:46 | comment | added | Ash | @GoingDurden Yes but this OP is equating a thin layer of volcanic ash to that glass layer which is not a useful comparison. | |
| Oct 8 at 11:44 | comment | added | Going Durden | @Ash, a layer of glass would be fantastic at capturing rainwater and moisture, thus creatign countless ponds, pools and even shallow lakes, which would fill with life far faster than soil could. Unless the water was toxic from the ash, there would be algae and mosquito larvae in it within days. | |
| Sep 27 at 7:30 | comment | added | Ash | Yes but most of it went down the river in the first rainfall, terrible for the fish, meant the soil was exposed and regeneration began almost immediately. | |
| Sep 27 at 0:50 | comment | added | Some Guy | Also, the ash may have been "nutrient rich" once various bacteria, fungi, etc. had time to start attacking it chemically over a few years, but in its original form as the mountain deposited it everywhere, about the closest equivalent I can compare it to would be gray powdered glass. Sterile, with no form of life in it, and with sharp corners. Not something you want to breathe without a mask, or even something you want to let your car windshield wipers wipe off of your car (it would tear up your windshield). Nasty stuff. | |
| Sep 27 at 0:40 | comment | added | Some Guy | @Ash In many places the layer of ash was 12 feet deep or more. I have witnessed this personally, touring the site within 6 months after the damage. The explosion and its aftereffects deposited over a half inch of ash in my driveway, 80 miles away, and I was to the south of the mountain (the explosion blew north). | |
| Sep 26 at 3:42 | comment | added | Ash | The grey surface left by the St Helens eruptions was a relatively thin coating of nutrient rich volcanic ash the OP is asking about an impermeable layer 6m or more thick. | |
| Sep 26 at 2:03 | history | edited | Some Guy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added additional description and informative mention of bird poop.
|
| Sep 26 at 1:49 | history | answered | Some Guy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |