I think this is part of the federal government's Direct Action.
I wrote three times to Tony Abbott asking if the revegetation part of Direct Action would incorporate indigenous species. I received no reply but this item, without saying so directly, indicates that indigenous species will be the go. So this is probably excellent news.
But is it wise to plant when we have been told that a nino is developing that will bring drier conditions and worsen the current drought in inland qld and nsw. I understand that seedlings ( tube stock ) will be used and they need some watering before they become established. What will their survival rates be under drier than normal conditions and will all that work be in vain, and therefore, a waste of tax payers money.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Good question, doublebar. We can be forgiven for thinking that lots of money will be wasted. However, I've had great success rates by planting at the break of season in my part of South Australia even when dry seasons follow.
Woko, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "planting at the break of season"?
Almost any time of the year here in Tenterfield, NSW is the dry season now. Just about every plant survives on the moisture provided by frosts and fog. It rarely rains. It may rain 6-8 times a year now, if we're lucky. Summer storms generally go around us. Some years are better than others for rainfall. So any time of the year is a good time to plant considering the lack of rainfall here. I just plant things deeper than normal so their roots are not as exposed to the surface temperatures so early on, and cover with bark chips when available.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
Hi Hyperbirds. By this I mean planting when the first good rain occurs after summer. Where I live on the south eastern slopes of the Mt Lofty Ranges in SA that's usually in May. It's when the farmers are out sowing their oats (& wheat). If there are reasonable follow up rains I don't have to do any watering whatsoever.
That's a lot of trees but I think the individual person must also do their part to plant trees, shrubs, etc as well. The Tenterfield council district could easily use up those 20 million trees and would still have room to spare to plant more. Not many would probably survive though.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Is this really true, for all species? The only reason that I'm querying this is because where I live, native birds seem to thrive in both native forests or gardens (such as ours) as well as one of our local parks that features virtually nothing but European trees: http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/index.php/mossvale-park-south-gippsland/.
many native birds have adapted to exotic vegetation, however these landscapes do not support the whole suite of native birds found in natural forests (often notably absent are small insectivorous species due to exotic trees supporting much less insect biodiversity).
many native birds have adapted to exotic vegetation, however these landscapes do not support the whole suite of native birds found in natural forests (often notably absent are small insectivorous species due to exotic trees supporting much less insect biodiversity).
I can understand that and clearly adaptation is at work, but I also think that it's a matter of balance, as native and exotics (or European trees) can co-exist and support all manner of fauna.
Living in what is a bushfire prone area, European trees provide a natural buffer or fire break, should bushfires arise. In this case I'm talking about major trees, not shrubs and the like which can contribute in many ways to biodiversity.
I'm firmly of the belief that we can create diverse and successful habitats by combining both native and appropriate exotic plants that will benefit everyone; to provide beauty and functionality. Everything is climate dependent of course.
Nice, 20 million is a good start. I often wonder how many trees are required to accomodate one humans life style on the plantet. Thinking of westerners here. But all the fuel used for transport, lighting, heating, cooling. All the energy required to manufacturer what they buy, eat, or throw away. Have all the stuff they desire delivered or stocked. Is it 10, 100, 1000, or 10 000 trees a year to soak up one humans polution? I doubt we would ever know. Then I look around at who is and isn't planting, and what type of plants are being planted. All a bit depressing really but 20 million is a good start. Tip of the ice berge I would think.
You bring up an interesting point jason. I wonder why no-one has come up with an Einsteinian-like equation for the worth of X trees in terms of carbon storage, oxygen production and carbon dioxide reduction. It would make a lot of sense to dumb-arse people like me who are often snowed with scientific figures about carbon in the atmosphere. It is something we all should know. Surely it can't be that hard to quantify.
I don't get it, I only went to grade 10 and barely glowed at that even. But I have heard the world can be explained by math.
I'd imagine the pro human rape and pillage parties would see it as hogs wash anyway. But by my simple math, 30c per tube stock for 20 of the 24 million Australias, equals about 1/8 of one FA 18 super hiornet. We have about 80 of them at 50 million each which the Government wants to replace. 6 million on tube stock and I bet the little kings were whinging at that even.
There is far more to it than that. Even if the tube stock itself cost nothing, you have to account for all the other costs associated with getting the trees to their final planting location. That means someone has to initially collect and package the trees, compile an inventory, have them collected and delivered to distribution centres, new inventories compiled, maintenance of the tree stock conducted (watering etc), further repackaging, distribution etc. At each stage there is a cost involved and these costs far outweight the individual tree stock cost. The whole thing is a logistics exercise of quite significant proportions and that doesn't come cheaply.
Ray, neither does fresh air unfortunately, but it's a reflection on where humans values lay. 20 million trees is a drop in the ocean, even if it cost 20 million to plant them. But 56 billion on 12 submerines. 35 new planes at 50 million each, new tanks, armery and so on. 4 billion a year to keep the current Collins submarines in active service. All happily put at risk by one missile attack seems all very self serving.
I say lets buy 11 subs and put 4.6 billion into strengthing, expanding, and making the environment healthier. Surley clean air and more habitate on the planet is worth 4.6 billion. Afterall habitat distruction in the No1 reason for extinction rates accross the planet, and we are world leaders down here in sunny Australia.
I got my maths wrong and have a correction, sorry. Prisons are currently doing native tree tube stock for 60c each not 30c. I have also discovered prisoners are currently doing bushcare rehab and planting work around the country in small numbers. I reckon get as many prisioners as possible out there. We pay a bill for them regardless, but humans need to get over some of their fears as the "not in my back yard" which is a real problem for the programe.
Ray I am curious you suggest exocitic trees can add biodiversity to the picture. Can you expand please. From what I see using a Chinese Elms as an example. It may provide food for bats with no or deminishing alternatives, but they don't rip into it like a melalucea or fig tree. Jacaranda, poinciana, various pines, pohutukawa (NZ Xmas tree) seem to offer nature little if anything, but wow humans with their colours and shapes. I struggle to see hardly any biodiversity benifit from such exotics.
Ray I am curious you suggest exocitic trees can add biodiversity to the picture. Can you expand please. From what I see using a Chinese Elms as an example. It may provide food for bats with no or deminishing alternatives, but they don't rip into it like a melalucea or fig tree. Jacaranda, poinciana, various pines, pohutukawa (NZ Xmas tree) seem to offer nature little if anything, but wow humans with their colours and shapes. I struggle to see hardly any biodiversity benifit from such exotics.
Everyone has a different view on what constitutes effective and efficient spending, so it’s not really worth debating Defence and the like.
On the issue of native vs exotic trees, I did mention that it’s environment dependent. You being in Queensland will experience a completely different environment to what we have in South Gippsland or Gippsland in general. When Europeans first settled here, they brought trees and plants from Europe because the climate was so suitable for these plants. My story about Mossvale Park reflects what one nurseryman achieved.
Mossvale Park also represents what could be called an archive of trees that is not only of national significance, but potentially of global significance. Mossvale Park currently has 158 registered trees of significance and they have recently discovered another one on the estate. Biodiversity is a complex affair and it’s all too easy to suggest that there should be nothing but natives in existence (in Australia).
From first-hand experience observing birds etc in Mossvale Park, I can reasonably confidently suggest that birdlife especially thrives in the park. The birdlife ranges from the parrots that I’ve shown to Ibis, Magpies, Kookaburras, small insect eating birds (impossible to photograph), honeyeater type birds, as well as water fowl; all this in what is a relatively small area.
Also, as this is a farming area, much of it devoted to potatoes, a lot of the land has been cleared, but with plenty of forest available, because it’s also a forestry area. Potato farming requires a lot of water, so the area is dotted with dams small and large, which brings in plenty of birdlife. What’s the link? Potatoes are exotic to Australia.
With regard to fire safety, it’s been proven time and time again, in Victoria at least, that European trees such as Oaks, Elms, Poplars etc can stop a fire in its tracks. However, many councils ban such trees and mandate the planting of Eucalypts, which do anything but prevent fires. The recent Victorian fires over the last decade have done more ecological damage than anything else in recent history. And things aren’t getting any better. But that’s another issue.
Indeed Ray, there is not an easy way to say this, but everyone has a view on exotic trees as well. All I see is a living musuem of Europen arrogance, dominance, and sheep like behaviour. Furthermore the biodiversity is as limited as the birds who grace the exotic trees in the park.
Trees planted for europeans thinking of back home. Colours to make them feel like back home, and now considered a national treasure by europeans who call Australia home. As I said with my defence coment, all a bit self serving really.
I don’t believe that’s the case, there’s room for both. And there’s no such thing as purity today, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have a healthy balance. Nor can you start erasing our history, because then where do you stop?
And to be honest; places like Mossvale Park make people appreciate nature and the environment far more than will just another gum forest. And the gardens that abound with flowers and flowering trees add to the beauty.
Mossvale Park and many other places that have European trees co-exist with adjacent gum forests. No one loses out; it’s not as if the European trees are overwhelming the native forests.
If anyone finds a place like Mossvale Park abhorrent, I wonder whether they have a soul.
Well I guess there's a bit going for both sides of the argument. Personally I much prefer natives but there is room for exotics. Any tree is better than no tree. Native bees for example aren't fussy. They want the honey and pollen and don't care what produces it. Native birdlife is more affected I think because exotics don't provide the habitat and richness of food source that old growth native forests do. Canberra is probably a good example of a mix of natives and exotics. Bushland surrounds, exotic street trees, native botanical gardens but also an arboretum devoted mainly to exotic species. To me, natives have their own special attraction, but I have grown exotics eg Japanese maples as a replacement for a front lawn. Better a tree than a lawn. Better a native tree than an exotic, but we can't always be exemplary.
I've seen plenty of native birds feeding on exotic trees.
I more often see Gang-gangs feeding on introduced hawthorns than any native tree, same goes for Yellow-tailed black cockatoos and pines. they seem to prefer them to native food sources.
In fact some introduced species have actually saved some native birds. examples include the white-headed pigeon which has facing extinction due to habitat loss, it adapted to the camphor laurel and has now recovered. similarly in WA the Carnaby's black-cockatoo feeds mainly on exotic pines (mind you it's not like they had a choice).
and i don't like the reduction of all 700+ eucalypt species to 'gums'. There are many very attractive species (easily as beautiful as any exotic tree imho).
If we didn't hack, slash build buid build than species probably would not be on the brink of extinction. And this is my point. We can't undo history, but there is no need to be like sheep and keep following the same path as our ancestors. Millions on defence when we know nature is buckling under the stress of humans. Freedom is not free but neither with teh environment be if we keep it up. We farm cows and hard hoofed live stock, and keep clearing more land than ever to do so. I have read the Australian Infrastructure Plan released Feb 2016, and its more hack, slash build build build. If we just stoped being so europen and farmed soft paw native animals for example we would not have half the erosion, silt, die back, salinity and weed issues we do now. I can bang on how it could work but I doubt many are interested.
I have been a bit harsh on Ray. I too like the autum colours, that soft carpet of golden leaves, but we need to move on from being european sheep. I'm also of the view I don't take my kids to Dream World to see the tigers. I save up and go to Africa on the hope we may see a tiger. I'd like to go to Japan to see the autum colours, as I hope they would like to come to Australia to see out unique flora and fauna. Perhaps why shopping around the world is so boring these days, it's all the same.
sure every bit helps, i don't think we should clearfell every exotic tree in the country (we need as much vegetation as we can get) but i think a movement towards incorporating more native species into our urban landscape is something i can get behind.
i can see the concern pertaining to flammability of native trees and the recommendation of planting exotics, but i see no reason why non-invasive australian rainforest trees can't be utilised as well/instead for the same purpose.
might be a bit ambitious looking for a wild tiger in africa, though.
I save up and go to Africa on the hope we may see a tiger. I'd like to go to Japan to see the autum colours, as I hope they would like to come to Australia to see out unique flora and fauna. Perhaps why shopping around the world is so boring these days, it's all the same.
I would be somewhat concerned if I saw a tiger in Africa.
I prefer to travel, experience and learn more about Australia than Africa etc. I know people who can tell me and show me just about anything about any country in the world, except for Australia.
sure every bit helps, i don't think we should clearfell every exotic tree in the country (we need as much vegetation as we can get) but i think a movement towards incorporating more native species into our urban landscape is something i can get behind.
i can see the concern pertaining to flammability of native trees and the recommendation of planting exotics, but i see no reason why non-invasive australian rainforest trees can't be utilised as well/instead for the same purpose.
might be a bit ambitious looking for a wild tiger in africa, though.
Many rain forest trees simply won't survive in areas where they aren't native.
sure every bit helps, i don't think we should clearfell every exotic tree in the country (we need as much vegetation as we can get) but i think a movement towards incorporating more native species into our urban landscape is something i can get behind.
i can see the concern pertaining to flammability of native trees and the recommendation of planting exotics, but i see no reason why non-invasive australian rainforest trees can't be utilised as well/instead for the same purpose.
might be a bit ambitious looking for a wild tiger in africa, though.
Many rain forest trees simply won't survive in areas where they aren't native.
Simply not true.
Many are extremely adaptable (some are weeds e.g. pittosporum undulatum)
Many east coast high humidity species thrive in southern coastal victoria, lilly pillies, blueberry ash, melia, native frangipani, various palms are amongst the most common garden trees in melbourne, often thriving in full sun with less than half native rainfall.
It varies depending on the local conditions and I said many, not all. You can grow mangos in the west of Melbourne and Frangipanis thrive, but that's not necessarily the case when you consider locations where winter temperatures fall below zero and summer temperatures climb to the 40s.
Our climate is much more like northern Europe or the US, and so that's why you do find, in many parts of Gippsland, trees and plants from those parts of the world. Diversity is great.
There are also cool temperate rainforest species which may be better suited to southern suburban climes, seems a relatively unexplored area. We don't need that many successful species if we are striving towards the standards set by near-monoculture exotic street trees etc.
Far east gippsland is also part of NSW climatically, many subtropical palms, lill pillies, figs etc are found naturally there (which reminds me, moreton bay figs are in most cities)
There are also cool temperate rainforest species which may be better suited to southern suburban climes, seems a relatively unexplored area. We don't need that many successful species if we are striving towards the standards set by near-monoculture exotic street trees etc.
Far east gippsland is also part of NSW climatically, many subtropical palms, lill pillies, figs etc are found naturally there (which reminds me, moreton bay figs are in most cities)
Trees and birds have never been my specialty, so in the last few years I've been learning a lot. That said, I dare anyone that loves nature to stand under some of the trees in Mossvale Park and not come away impressed and emotionally moved.
My concern about so-called "balance" between natives & exotics is that so much of Australia's natural environment has been & continues to be compromised by humans that less & less of our natural environment exists. And to argue for the balancing act ignores the incredible complexity of natural ecosystems most of which, I venture to suggest, we still don't understand. So to balance natives with exotics is to compromise those natural ecosystems. And if we keep compromising there'll eventually be nothing natural left - by logical extension. So I think it behoves those who are intent on destroying natural ecosystems through so-called balance between natives & exotics, many of which are invasive & have their own insidious way of destroying natural ecosystems, to become a little more aware of what is being lost & to do something about it.
Planting native vegetation is one approach & the cost need not be prohibitive. For a start, Australia has signed up to buy dysfunctional fighter planes from the US at a cost of around $50 billion. So if there's money to waste on such dysfunctional items then there must surely be money for revegetation, particularly when revegetation will add to the productivity of farm land by improving soil health, reducing erosion, increasing water absorption & reducing the need for pesticides.
Even if the cost of revegetation should seem prohibitive the model used by Trees for Life in SA is worth considering. Centres have been established across the state to annually distribute in boxes indigenous seed, soil mix, tubes & slow-release fertilizer to an army of volunteers who collect these materials from the distribution centres in November each year. The volunteers then grow the seedlings in their backyards over summer. In autumn they make contact with their designated landholders who either collect the seedlings from their growers or the growers deliver the seedlings to the landholders. This is extremely productive both in terms of plant cost but also in terms of developing community awareness & relationships between rural & city dwellers.
However, planting isn't the only way to proceed. Natural regeneration of trees, shrubs & understorey is another. Ray has provided the most interesting story of Defense's Shoalwater Training Centre where land degraded by farming was cleared of exotic weeds & the natural bushland allowed to regenerate into the cleared areas. Here & there across our great nation there are people who are using minimum disturbance techniques to bring back the bush by removing exotic plants thereby enabling natural bushland to recover.
Yes, exotic trees sometimes provide protection from bushfires & there is undoubtedly an argument for the judicious use of exotics in bushfire protection. However, the use of native vegetation in bushfire protection is being ignored. On my property the regeneration of native grasses (which retain a green tinge in summer, especially after rain) & several indigenous, fire resistant understorey plants such as Ruby Saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa, Lagoon Saltbush Atriplex suberecta & Berry Saltbush Atriplex semibaccata is designed to prevent or at least limit grass fires getting into trees & shrubs.
Of course, Australia's vegetation & fire go together. So it seems passing strange that developers insist on building large housing developments as close to native bushland as they can. The explosion of housing developments in the Mt Lofty Ranges continues unabated & yet every time there's a bushfire there's a call to clear more bush & build more houses. Such calls clearly don't come from people who have considered the notion of not having large housing developments in the Ranges. Ultimately, having a human population that can be sustained by the natural environment would seem to be the way to go rather than the continual expansion of human numbers so that the natural environment is eventually overwhelmed, if it's not already, inevitably leading to the demise or partial demise of humans.
And don't get me started on climate change & bushfires. Nor on the relationship between our violence industry & materialistic society on the one hand & deliberately started bushfires on the other.
I would suggest that the majority of Australians prefer the so-called beauty of exotic plants & flowers. Yes, exotic flowers are beautiful but they are most beautiful in their own ecosystems. Many Australian flowers are beautiful, too, and they, too, are most beautiful in their own ecosystems. And Australian ecosystems have their own beauty, not to mention wonder & interest. Further, many exotic flowers lack the subtlety of many Australian flowers. So to plant exotics for their beauty is, perhaps, to engage in a type of cultural cringe, in my view. Why not value what we have here rather than kow tow to what is over there? National pride is at stake here!!
Where exotics have been seen as the saviour of a bird species I would argue for the gradual removal of the exotics & their replacement with indigenous species. Indeed, Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are now using Pinus radiata trees on my patch. But they're now also using the indigenous Southern Cypress Pines Callitris preissii (or whatever it's latest botanical name is) so that I've reduced the number of Pinus radiata from about 30 to 6 over the last few years. The strategy seems to be working because numbers of Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are not only increasing but arriving earlier in the year although there may be other factors at work in their earlier arrival.
At a more human-centred level, disturbing or destroying natural ecosystems by introducing exotic plants to them is to reduce the numbers of animal species & individuals within those species & thereby reduce the opportunities for photographers to photograph a wider range of creatures, particularly birds. If humans want the full range of animal species on offer in an undisturbed natural environment then leave it be. Don't go performing a balancing act.
Zosterops, given that there are 24 million mouths to feed in Australia I guess we need crops to feed them. All the more reason to restore large areas with indigenous vegetation so that soil quality can be improved, erosion prevented, toxins in the environment can be reduced through natural pest control etc. What we don't need is the almost gratuitous environmental destruction that is occurring in much of Australia.
Yes, I would get rid of much of Australia's exotic vegetation & try to replace it with the natural ecosystems of which we should not only be proud but stand in awe. After all, they exist nowhere else on Earth so why should we destroy them with exotics which are from ecosystems from elsewhere on the planet?
In a broad sense we place a very low value on our ecosystems & to me this demonstrates that we have yet to grow up as a nation. If anything, we're regressing, yearning for something we should have left behind long ago.
I come back to the article in the original post above that started this interesting discussion. What do we hear about the progress of the 20 million tree planting program? Nothing. Nothing that I have noticed. Its because its not newsworthy. People don't care and don't see value in trees. And yet we read in the world news today that little Bhutan with a population under 750,000 people planted 108,000 trees in honour of the birth of a baby prince. Again its back to values. How many trees do we plant to commemorate significant events in our lives? Births, deaths, achievements, etc? Bugger all! Pity, because trees make the perfect commemoration.
They do indeed, Night Parrot, especially if it's the right species in the right place grown from local provinence seed.
It's always seemed strange to me that to commemorate the brave deeds of Aussie soldiers in the world wars we've planted one of Australia's great pest plants Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis. That's invasion from which we need protection.
woko, if you can or would you like to email me at . I need your help with a letter and you are far better at it than I. It might be all a dream, but we have a PM looking for ingenuity, who wants to spend up big, and an election on the way which he needs to win convincingly. I need you to reply before 4.30 EST as I'm just a bout out the door for a little holiday.
Not wishing to buy in on this discussion, there are some very valid points raised.
Jason you can PM other members bu going to the top righ hand side of any page, and click, tap or whatever your device does on Messages. From here you can send messages to an individual or more than one member of the site.
Goodluck all, I am enjoying this lively discussion.
It is important that we look at the reality of improving our natural environment, which is what we all want. The fact is that people are becoming more distanced from the environment, spending more time in cars and the built environment. Computer screens and internet downlaods allow young people to immerse themselves in the "virtual world". It is a fact that in general young people are becoming less concerned with the natural environment, and also older people are retreating to things like shopping and TV.
The push for ecologically pure attitudes and natives only planting is not helping at all. People are made to feel guilty about a nice lawn and a few flower beds, and think that they have to have a few prickly natives or nothing at all. Though in reality native plantings don't have to be dry and prickly, that is the perception and many Australian natives are prickly and scratchy. Also they are not amenable to cultivation and will often die quite quickly. Gardening as a pastime is in a rapid decline, people don't spend as much time in the garden and don't buy many plants, native or exotic.
I think the environment would benefit if people could be encouraged back in the garden, and that means making gardening easy and rewarding, with attractive and easy-to-grow plants, and not stigmatising peoples planting choices whether native or exotic. At the moment the native v exotic debate is an irrelevant argument because people are losing interest in the environment and aren't planting anything at all, this disinterest allows politicians and developers to slowly erode our natural world and replace it with development.
That’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to convey. While some may despise exotic plants and believe that they in some way destroy the environment, if you ban such things, the unintended consequences can be far worse.
I live in an area that prides itself in environmental management, there are groups that are fiercely proud of what they do and maintain and will defend things to the hilt. I love European trees, but one third of our half-acre block hosts around 30, 100’+ gum trees (no idea what they are), as well as many other varieties of plants.
I’m currently growing a walnut tree in a pot that I brought back from the High Country as a seedling several years ago and will look at planting it this Autumn. We also have an Oak that was also picked that’s just coming alive in a pot and that too will be planted when ready. There’s no discrimination in our household and the wildlife seem to enjoy it.
You're spot on, Greg. Less & less people attend to the health of the natural environment because, as you imply, more & people are addicted to artificial devices to gain meaning in their lives. If the prediction that virtual reality devices are the next big wallet-sucking wave is accurate then the situation will only deteriorate. Sounds like an even greater imperative to restore our natural environment.
I think this is part of the federal government's Direct Action.
I wrote three times to Tony Abbott asking if the revegetation part of Direct Action would incorporate indigenous species. I received no reply but this item, without saying so directly, indicates that indigenous species will be the go. So this is probably excellent news.
But is it wise to plant when we have been told that a nino is developing that will bring drier conditions and worsen the current drought in inland qld and nsw. I understand that seedlings ( tube stock ) will be used and they need some watering before they become established. What will their survival rates be under drier than normal conditions and will all that work be in vain, and therefore, a waste of tax payers money.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Good question, doublebar. We can be forgiven for thinking that lots of money will be wasted. However, I've had great success rates by planting at the break of season in my part of South Australia even when dry seasons follow.
Woko, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "planting at the break of season"?
Almost any time of the year here in Tenterfield, NSW is the dry season now. Just about every plant survives on the moisture provided by frosts and fog. It rarely rains. It may rain 6-8 times a year now, if we're lucky. Summer storms generally go around us. Some years are better than others for rainfall. So any time of the year is a good time to plant considering the lack of rainfall here. I just plant things deeper than normal so their roots are not as exposed to the surface temperatures so early on, and cover with bark chips when available.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
Hi Hyperbirds. By this I mean planting when the first good rain occurs after summer. Where I live on the south eastern slopes of the Mt Lofty Ranges in SA that's usually in May. It's when the farmers are out sowing their oats (& wheat). If there are reasonable follow up rains I don't have to do any watering whatsoever.
Woko I hope they're not WILD oats that the farmers are sowing around Mt Lofty each May. Its the native birds we want to see proliferate.
Indeed, Night Parrot. There are far too many people in the Mt Lofty Ranges already.
That's a lot of trees but I think the individual person must also do their part to plant trees, shrubs, etc as well. The Tenterfield council district could easily use up those 20 million trees and would still have room to spare to plant more. Not many would probably survive though.
I'm at Tenterfield, NSW. (Formerly known as "Hyperbirds".)
Is this really true, for all species? The only reason that I'm querying this is because where I live, native birds seem to thrive in both native forests or gardens (such as ours) as well as one of our local parks that features virtually nothing but European trees: http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/index.php/mossvale-park-south-gippsland/.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
many native birds have adapted to exotic vegetation, however these landscapes do not support the whole suite of native birds found in natural forests (often notably absent are small insectivorous species due to exotic trees supporting much less insect biodiversity).
I can understand that and clearly adaptation is at work, but I also think that it's a matter of balance, as native and exotics (or European trees) can co-exist and support all manner of fauna.
Living in what is a bushfire prone area, European trees provide a natural buffer or fire break, should bushfires arise. In this case I'm talking about major trees, not shrubs and the like which can contribute in many ways to biodiversity.
I'm firmly of the belief that we can create diverse and successful habitats by combining both native and appropriate exotic plants that will benefit everyone; to provide beauty and functionality. Everything is climate dependent of course.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
Nice, 20 million is a good start. I often wonder how many trees are required to accomodate one humans life style on the plantet. Thinking of westerners here. But all the fuel used for transport, lighting, heating, cooling. All the energy required to manufacturer what they buy, eat, or throw away. Have all the stuff they desire delivered or stocked. Is it 10, 100, 1000, or 10 000 trees a year to soak up one humans polution? I doubt we would ever know. Then I look around at who is and isn't planting, and what type of plants are being planted. All a bit depressing really but 20 million is a good start. Tip of the ice berge I would think.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
You bring up an interesting point jason. I wonder why no-one has come up with an Einsteinian-like equation for the worth of X trees in terms of carbon storage, oxygen production and carbon dioxide reduction. It would make a lot of sense to dumb-arse people like me who are often snowed with scientific figures about carbon in the atmosphere. It is something we all should know. Surely it can't be that hard to quantify.
I don't get it, I only went to grade 10 and barely glowed at that even. But I have heard the world can be explained by math.
I'd imagine the pro human rape and pillage parties would see it as hogs wash anyway. But by my simple math, 30c per tube stock for 20 of the 24 million Australias, equals about 1/8 of one FA 18 super hiornet. We have about 80 of them at 50 million each which the Government wants to replace. 6 million on tube stock and I bet the little kings were whinging at that even.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
There is far more to it than that. Even if the tube stock itself cost nothing, you have to account for all the other costs associated with getting the trees to their final planting location. That means someone has to initially collect and package the trees, compile an inventory, have them collected and delivered to distribution centres, new inventories compiled, maintenance of the tree stock conducted (watering etc), further repackaging, distribution etc. At each stage there is a cost involved and these costs far outweight the individual tree stock cost. The whole thing is a logistics exercise of quite significant proportions and that doesn't come cheaply.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
it's certainly not inconceivable.
China's doing it...
Ray, neither does fresh air unfortunately, but it's a reflection on where humans values lay. 20 million trees is a drop in the ocean, even if it cost 20 million to plant them. But 56 billion on 12 submerines. 35 new planes at 50 million each, new tanks, armery and so on. 4 billion a year to keep the current Collins submarines in active service. All happily put at risk by one missile attack seems all very self serving.
I say lets buy 11 subs and put 4.6 billion into strengthing, expanding, and making the environment healthier. Surley clean air and more habitate on the planet is worth 4.6 billion. Afterall habitat distruction in the No1 reason for extinction rates accross the planet, and we are world leaders down here in sunny Australia.
I got my maths wrong and have a correction, sorry. Prisons are currently doing native tree tube stock for 60c each not 30c. I have also discovered prisoners are currently doing bushcare rehab and planting work around the country in small numbers. I reckon get as many prisioners as possible out there. We pay a bill for them regardless, but humans need to get over some of their fears as the "not in my back yard" which is a real problem for the programe.
Ray I am curious you suggest exocitic trees can add biodiversity to the picture. Can you expand please. From what I see using a Chinese Elms as an example. It may provide food for bats with no or deminishing alternatives, but they don't rip into it like a melalucea or fig tree. Jacaranda, poinciana, various pines, pohutukawa (NZ Xmas tree) seem to offer nature little if anything, but wow humans with their colours and shapes. I struggle to see hardly any biodiversity benifit from such exotics.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
Everyone has a different view on what constitutes effective and efficient spending, so it’s not really worth debating Defence and the like.
On the issue of native vs exotic trees, I did mention that it’s environment dependent. You being in Queensland will experience a completely different environment to what we have in South Gippsland or Gippsland in general. When Europeans first settled here, they brought trees and plants from Europe because the climate was so suitable for these plants. My story about Mossvale Park reflects what one nurseryman achieved.
Mossvale Park also represents what could be called an archive of trees that is not only of national significance, but potentially of global significance. Mossvale Park currently has 158 registered trees of significance and they have recently discovered another one on the estate. Biodiversity is a complex affair and it’s all too easy to suggest that there should be nothing but natives in existence (in Australia).
From first-hand experience observing birds etc in Mossvale Park, I can reasonably confidently suggest that birdlife especially thrives in the park. The birdlife ranges from the parrots that I’ve shown to Ibis, Magpies, Kookaburras, small insect eating birds (impossible to photograph), honeyeater type birds, as well as water fowl; all this in what is a relatively small area.
Also, as this is a farming area, much of it devoted to potatoes, a lot of the land has been cleared, but with plenty of forest available, because it’s also a forestry area. Potato farming requires a lot of water, so the area is dotted with dams small and large, which brings in plenty of birdlife. What’s the link? Potatoes are exotic to Australia.
With regard to fire safety, it’s been proven time and time again, in Victoria at least, that European trees such as Oaks, Elms, Poplars etc can stop a fire in its tracks. However, many councils ban such trees and mandate the planting of Eucalypts, which do anything but prevent fires. The recent Victorian fires over the last decade have done more ecological damage than anything else in recent history. And things aren’t getting any better. But that’s another issue.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
Indeed Ray, there is not an easy way to say this, but everyone has a view on exotic trees as well. All I see is a living musuem of Europen arrogance, dominance, and sheep like behaviour. Furthermore the biodiversity is as limited as the birds who grace the exotic trees in the park.
Trees planted for europeans thinking of back home. Colours to make them feel like back home, and now considered a national treasure by europeans who call Australia home. As I said with my defence coment, all a bit self serving really.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I don’t believe that’s the case, there’s room for both. And there’s no such thing as purity today, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have a healthy balance. Nor can you start erasing our history, because then where do you stop?
And to be honest; places like Mossvale Park make people appreciate nature and the environment far more than will just another gum forest. And the gardens that abound with flowers and flowering trees add to the beauty.
Mossvale Park and many other places that have European trees co-exist with adjacent gum forests. No one loses out; it’s not as if the European trees are overwhelming the native forests.
If anyone finds a place like Mossvale Park abhorrent, I wonder whether they have a soul.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
Well I guess there's a bit going for both sides of the argument. Personally I much prefer natives but there is room for exotics. Any tree is better than no tree. Native bees for example aren't fussy. They want the honey and pollen and don't care what produces it. Native birdlife is more affected I think because exotics don't provide the habitat and richness of food source that old growth native forests do. Canberra is probably a good example of a mix of natives and exotics. Bushland surrounds, exotic street trees, native botanical gardens but also an arboretum devoted mainly to exotic species. To me, natives have their own special attraction, but I have grown exotics eg Japanese maples as a replacement for a front lawn. Better a tree than a lawn. Better a native tree than an exotic, but we can't always be exemplary.
I've seen plenty of native birds feeding on exotic trees.
I more often see Gang-gangs feeding on introduced hawthorns than any native tree, same goes for Yellow-tailed black cockatoos and pines. they seem to prefer them to native food sources.
In fact some introduced species have actually saved some native birds. examples include the white-headed pigeon which has facing extinction due to habitat loss, it adapted to the camphor laurel and has now recovered. similarly in WA the Carnaby's black-cockatoo feeds mainly on exotic pines (mind you it's not like they had a choice).
and i don't like the reduction of all 700+ eucalypt species to 'gums'. There are many very attractive species (easily as beautiful as any exotic tree imho).
here is eucalyptus macrocarpa
http://anpsa.org.au/jpg1/800054.jpg
http://www.dn.com.au/Eucalypt_Diversity_Australia_gallery/Pictures/Eucalyptus-macrocarpa.jpg
If we didn't hack, slash build buid build than species probably would not be on the brink of extinction. And this is my point. We can't undo history, but there is no need to be like sheep and keep following the same path as our ancestors. Millions on defence when we know nature is buckling under the stress of humans. Freedom is not free but neither with teh environment be if we keep it up. We farm cows and hard hoofed live stock, and keep clearing more land than ever to do so. I have read the Australian Infrastructure Plan released Feb 2016, and its more hack, slash build build build. If we just stoped being so europen and farmed soft paw native animals for example we would not have half the erosion, silt, die back, salinity and weed issues we do now. I can bang on how it could work but I doubt many are interested.
I have been a bit harsh on Ray. I too like the autum colours, that soft carpet of golden leaves, but we need to move on from being european sheep. I'm also of the view I don't take my kids to Dream World to see the tigers. I save up and go to Africa on the hope we may see a tiger. I'd like to go to Japan to see the autum colours, as I hope they would like to come to Australia to see out unique flora and fauna. Perhaps why shopping around the world is so boring these days, it's all the same.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
sure every bit helps, i don't think we should clearfell every exotic tree in the country (we need as much vegetation as we can get) but i think a movement towards incorporating more native species into our urban landscape is something i can get behind.
i can see the concern pertaining to flammability of native trees and the recommendation of planting exotics, but i see no reason why non-invasive australian rainforest trees can't be utilised as well/instead for the same purpose.
might be a bit ambitious looking for a wild tiger in africa, though.
I like your diplomacy zosterops.
I would be somewhat concerned if I saw a tiger in Africa.
I prefer to travel, experience and learn more about Australia than Africa etc. I know people who can tell me and show me just about anything about any country in the world, except for Australia.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
Many rain forest trees simply won't survive in areas where they aren't native.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
Simply not true.
Many are extremely adaptable (some are weeds e.g. pittosporum undulatum)
Many east coast high humidity species thrive in southern coastal victoria, lilly pillies, blueberry ash, melia, native frangipani, various palms are amongst the most common garden trees in melbourne, often thriving in full sun with less than half native rainfall.
Actually many Northern australian tropical conifers like Agathis, Araucaria etc thrive in southern victoria and tasmania
It varies depending on the local conditions and I said many, not all. You can grow mangos in the west of Melbourne and Frangipanis thrive, but that's not necessarily the case when you consider locations where winter temperatures fall below zero and summer temperatures climb to the 40s.
Our climate is much more like northern Europe or the US, and so that's why you do find, in many parts of Gippsland, trees and plants from those parts of the world. Diversity is great.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
There are also cool temperate rainforest species which may be better suited to southern suburban climes, seems a relatively unexplored area. We don't need that many successful species if we are striving towards the standards set by near-monoculture exotic street trees etc.
Far east gippsland is also part of NSW climatically, many subtropical palms, lill pillies, figs etc are found naturally there (which reminds me, moreton bay figs are in most cities)
hoy, I did say "hope to see a tiger". The joy of travel...
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
Trees and birds have never been my specialty, so in the last few years I've been learning a lot. That said, I dare anyone that loves nature to stand under some of the trees in Mossvale Park and not come away impressed and emotionally moved.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
My concern about so-called "balance" between natives & exotics is that so much of Australia's natural environment has been & continues to be compromised by humans that less & less of our natural environment exists. And to argue for the balancing act ignores the incredible complexity of natural ecosystems most of which, I venture to suggest, we still don't understand. So to balance natives with exotics is to compromise those natural ecosystems. And if we keep compromising there'll eventually be nothing natural left - by logical extension. So I think it behoves those who are intent on destroying natural ecosystems through so-called balance between natives & exotics, many of which are invasive & have their own insidious way of destroying natural ecosystems, to become a little more aware of what is being lost & to do something about it.
Planting native vegetation is one approach & the cost need not be prohibitive. For a start, Australia has signed up to buy dysfunctional fighter planes from the US at a cost of around $50 billion. So if there's money to waste on such dysfunctional items then there must surely be money for revegetation, particularly when revegetation will add to the productivity of farm land by improving soil health, reducing erosion, increasing water absorption & reducing the need for pesticides.
Even if the cost of revegetation should seem prohibitive the model used by Trees for Life in SA is worth considering. Centres have been established across the state to annually distribute in boxes indigenous seed, soil mix, tubes & slow-release fertilizer to an army of volunteers who collect these materials from the distribution centres in November each year. The volunteers then grow the seedlings in their backyards over summer. In autumn they make contact with their designated landholders who either collect the seedlings from their growers or the growers deliver the seedlings to the landholders. This is extremely productive both in terms of plant cost but also in terms of developing community awareness & relationships between rural & city dwellers.
However, planting isn't the only way to proceed. Natural regeneration of trees, shrubs & understorey is another. Ray has provided the most interesting story of Defense's Shoalwater Training Centre where land degraded by farming was cleared of exotic weeds & the natural bushland allowed to regenerate into the cleared areas. Here & there across our great nation there are people who are using minimum disturbance techniques to bring back the bush by removing exotic plants thereby enabling natural bushland to recover.
Yes, exotic trees sometimes provide protection from bushfires & there is undoubtedly an argument for the judicious use of exotics in bushfire protection. However, the use of native vegetation in bushfire protection is being ignored. On my property the regeneration of native grasses (which retain a green tinge in summer, especially after rain) & several indigenous, fire resistant understorey plants such as Ruby Saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa, Lagoon Saltbush Atriplex suberecta & Berry Saltbush Atriplex semibaccata is designed to prevent or at least limit grass fires getting into trees & shrubs.
Of course, Australia's vegetation & fire go together. So it seems passing strange that developers insist on building large housing developments as close to native bushland as they can. The explosion of housing developments in the Mt Lofty Ranges continues unabated & yet every time there's a bushfire there's a call to clear more bush & build more houses. Such calls clearly don't come from people who have considered the notion of not having large housing developments in the Ranges. Ultimately, having a human population that can be sustained by the natural environment would seem to be the way to go rather than the continual expansion of human numbers so that the natural environment is eventually overwhelmed, if it's not already, inevitably leading to the demise or partial demise of humans.
And don't get me started on climate change & bushfires. Nor on the relationship between our violence industry & materialistic society on the one hand & deliberately started bushfires on the other.
I would suggest that the majority of Australians prefer the so-called beauty of exotic plants & flowers. Yes, exotic flowers are beautiful but they are most beautiful in their own ecosystems. Many Australian flowers are beautiful, too, and they, too, are most beautiful in their own ecosystems. And Australian ecosystems have their own beauty, not to mention wonder & interest. Further, many exotic flowers lack the subtlety of many Australian flowers. So to plant exotics for their beauty is, perhaps, to engage in a type of cultural cringe, in my view. Why not value what we have here rather than kow tow to what is over there? National pride is at stake here!!
Where exotics have been seen as the saviour of a bird species I would argue for the gradual removal of the exotics & their replacement with indigenous species. Indeed, Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are now using Pinus radiata trees on my patch. But they're now also using the indigenous Southern Cypress Pines Callitris preissii (or whatever it's latest botanical name is) so that I've reduced the number of Pinus radiata from about 30 to 6 over the last few years. The strategy seems to be working because numbers of Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoos are not only increasing but arriving earlier in the year although there may be other factors at work in their earlier arrival.
At a more human-centred level, disturbing or destroying natural ecosystems by introducing exotic plants to them is to reduce the numbers of animal species & individuals within those species & thereby reduce the opportunities for photographers to photograph a wider range of creatures, particularly birds. If humans want the full range of animal species on offer in an undisturbed natural environment then leave it be. Don't go performing a balancing act.
Do you think all exotic vegetation australia-wide should be destroyed?
What about food crops?
what about historic ornamental parks and botanic gardens with arrays of exotic species?
Well said woko. Like a true Lorax......you speak for the trees.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
Zosterops, given that there are 24 million mouths to feed in Australia I guess we need crops to feed them. All the more reason to restore large areas with indigenous vegetation so that soil quality can be improved, erosion prevented, toxins in the environment can be reduced through natural pest control etc. What we don't need is the almost gratuitous environmental destruction that is occurring in much of Australia.
Yes, I would get rid of much of Australia's exotic vegetation & try to replace it with the natural ecosystems of which we should not only be proud but stand in awe. After all, they exist nowhere else on Earth so why should we destroy them with exotics which are from ecosystems from elsewhere on the planet?
In a broad sense we place a very low value on our ecosystems & to me this demonstrates that we have yet to grow up as a nation. If anything, we're regressing, yearning for something we should have left behind long ago.
I come back to the article in the original post above that started this interesting discussion. What do we hear about the progress of the 20 million tree planting program? Nothing. Nothing that I have noticed. Its because its not newsworthy. People don't care and don't see value in trees. And yet we read in the world news today that little Bhutan with a population under 750,000 people planted 108,000 trees in honour of the birth of a baby prince. Again its back to values. How many trees do we plant to commemorate significant events in our lives? Births, deaths, achievements, etc? Bugger all! Pity, because trees make the perfect commemoration.
They do indeed, Night Parrot, especially if it's the right species in the right place grown from local provinence seed.
It's always seemed strange to me that to commemorate the brave deeds of Aussie soldiers in the world wars we've planted one of Australia's great pest plants Aleppo Pine Pinus halepensis. That's invasion from which we need protection.
Can we not PM each other on this site?
woko, if you can or would you like to email me at . I need your help with a letter and you are far better at it than I. It might be all a dream, but we have a PM looking for ingenuity, who wants to spend up big, and an election on the way which he needs to win convincingly. I need you to reply before 4.30 EST as I'm just a bout out the door for a little holiday.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
Not wishing to buy in on this discussion, there are some very valid points raised.
Jason you can PM other members bu going to the top righ hand side of any page, and click, tap or whatever your device does on Messages. From here you can send messages to an individual or more than one member of the site.
Goodluck all, I am enjoying this lively discussion.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Got it, thanks Dale. Now don't you just sit in the fence...don't be shy as there is something of worth in evey comment.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
It is important that we look at the reality of improving our natural environment, which is what we all want. The fact is that people are becoming more distanced from the environment, spending more time in cars and the built environment. Computer screens and internet downlaods allow young people to immerse themselves in the "virtual world". It is a fact that in general young people are becoming less concerned with the natural environment, and also older people are retreating to things like shopping and TV.
The push for ecologically pure attitudes and natives only planting is not helping at all. People are made to feel guilty about a nice lawn and a few flower beds, and think that they have to have a few prickly natives or nothing at all. Though in reality native plantings don't have to be dry and prickly, that is the perception and many Australian natives are prickly and scratchy. Also they are not amenable to cultivation and will often die quite quickly. Gardening as a pastime is in a rapid decline, people don't spend as much time in the garden and don't buy many plants, native or exotic.
I think the environment would benefit if people could be encouraged back in the garden, and that means making gardening easy and rewarding, with attractive and easy-to-grow plants, and not stigmatising peoples planting choices whether native or exotic. At the moment the native v exotic debate is an irrelevant argument because people are losing interest in the environment and aren't planting anything at all, this disinterest allows politicians and developers to slowly erode our natural world and replace it with development.
That’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to convey. While some may despise exotic plants and believe that they in some way destroy the environment, if you ban such things, the unintended consequences can be far worse.
I live in an area that prides itself in environmental management, there are groups that are fiercely proud of what they do and maintain and will defend things to the hilt. I love European trees, but one third of our half-acre block hosts around 30, 100’+ gum trees (no idea what they are), as well as many other varieties of plants.
I’m currently growing a walnut tree in a pot that I brought back from the High Country as a seedling several years ago and will look at planting it this Autumn. We also have an Oak that was also picked that’s just coming alive in a pot and that too will be planted when ready. There’s no discrimination in our household and the wildlife seem to enjoy it.
--------------------
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/
You're spot on, Greg. Less & less people attend to the health of the natural environment because, as you imply, more & people are addicted to artificial devices to gain meaning in their lives. If the prediction that virtual reality devices are the next big wallet-sucking wave is accurate then the situation will only deteriorate. Sounds like an even greater imperative to restore our natural environment.