WONS: New native weed- Eucalyptus

Where daily bits of info can be added and discussed.

Moderator: webmaster

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

WONS: New native weed- Eucalyptus

Postby duane » Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:57 pm

The Weeds of National Significance Act is about to be lobbied to put the whole Genus Eucalyptus on the WONS list.

It is the greatest environmental weed this country has!!!

WHY should it be declared??

It is invasive.
It burns.
Its alleolopathic
It's residue fails to break down.
Its a monoculture.
It's poisoning and killing ALL of our watersheds.
It prevents biodiversity from growing beneath it.


All the reasons for putting it on the WONS list.

Anyone want to debate the topic please join the post.
Last edited by duane on Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.

ColinJEly
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Postby ColinJEly » Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:07 pm

Don't forget Corymbia sp as well! This is no more silly than declaring Salix sp a declared weed. In Europe they are used, nay encouraged, for riparian restoration. Why not here, do we have different water in our rivers here compared to the rest of the world? Eucalyptus/Corymbia are nice as a specimen tree, but we have lots of other species which are nice in a horticultural setting and produce a valuable timber as well.

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:59 pm

:D :roll:

Push to weed out any wins in the willows
BY DANE HALPIN

7/08/2009 12:00:00 AM Extract from THE Canberra Times
The maligned willow may be in for a tree change.

Although officially a noxious weed, the willow's status is up for review amid claims millions of dollars are being wasted destroying the tree without scientific basis.

The Australian Weeds Committee has commissioned the Bureau of Rural Sciences to gauge stakeholder opinions on the Government's Weeds of National Significance program.

Controversial pioneer of natural sequence farming, Peter Andrews, says the review is seriously needed and the issue was explored further on Saturday when The Canberra Times reported on Mulloon Creek landholder Tony Coote's support for keeping willows on his property.

''This is the opportunity for Australia to have the very best productive capacity in the world,'' Mr Andrews said yesterday.

But ACT Parks, Conservation and Lands weeds and pest coordinator Steve Taylor said willows were rampant invaders and believed Mr Andrews' farming methods disrupted the native biodiversity of a natural ecosystem.

''They say they're using colonising species, but they will also invade ... quite healthy pastures and completely smother those areas,'' Mr Taylor said.

Mr Andrews dismissed the claims.

''It has no scientific basis whatsoever,'' he said.But whether he is seen as a villain or a visionary, Mr Andrews is delivering a strong message on the future of Australian agriculture.

By placing obstructions, including willows, in creeks, Mr Andrews has slowed the flow of water on his property, giving it time to filter into the groundwater system to be stored.

He said this prevented the evaporation that occured with traditional dam storage.

The ACT Government spent $2.2million on weed control last financial year, about 10 per cent of which went towards clearing willows. The results of the weeds review will be issued in December.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INVASION: there's that word AGAIN.

Nothing to do with environmental function.

So, if it is invasive and therefore it should be proclaimed a weed of National Significance. Surely, that fits their simple logic.

Eucalypts are INVASIVE. Therefore, they should be added to the WONS list.
Last edited by duane on Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:02 am

Shirley,

I would love to hear your interpreted comment on my assertion that Eucalypts should be declared noxious for all the reasons given above:?:

I think its about time we have this debate bought out in the open i.e., the Native vs Non Native debate. So much policy is guided by this misdirected understanding, I believe.

We need to debate the real science behind Wons and the real science that identifies plants functionality in any ecosystem.

Over to you Shirley.......

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:04 pm

New post added for you Shirley....see above.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

WONS

Postby Shirley Henderson » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:58 pm

Willows versus Eucalyptus. That is a very interesting debate.
What I do not understand is the reasoning behind WONS.
Weeds of National significance.
Clearly it is impossible to get heard on such matters so it is up to each of us to weigh up the necessity to bring some balance back to the functioning of our degraded environment.
Bare in mind that weeds committees are now adding native plant species on to their lists of undesirable plants because they are growing in areas “beyond their range”.
1. Acacia baileyana, Pittosporum undulatum, Acacia longifolia var sophorae, Kunzea ericoides and Leptospermum laevigatum.
(Ref Bush Invaders Adam Muyt)
…to name a few
It has been disregarded that each of these plants perform a function, grow in certain conditions, seek the right conditions and can not grow where the conditions are not right for them. So it is the conditions and the soil and the changes we have inflicted to the country that are causing the changes of plant communities to occur and this is what we should be examining.
I have listed below some of the functions of the Eucalyptus, Angophora and Corymbia (all gums) and the willow
Eucalyptus species are all over Australia and are always the dominant tree in most plant communities.
Willows have been here for over 200 years but they have not taken over the country as FEARED.
Eucalyptus march on propagating freely beginning the ongoing process of dominance but without the necessary diversity to follow; the creation of mixed plant communities; the Eucalyptus becomes a Fire zone just waiting to happen.
Willows indicate moisture wherever they grow and begin the process of wetland regeneration, soil stabilisation plus many other benefits.
Wetland areas that retain moisture do not burn readily and the restoration of moisture to land surrounding wet areas can also maintain a high diversity of plant vegetation slowing or deterring fire.
Eucalyptus has to be thinned or kept to a minimum to reduce the fire hazard.
The diversity of other plant species cannot readily propagate as the Eucalypts do because of introduced pests such as rabbits, hard hooved animals, humans.
Willows do not take water and moisture away from the surface where many diverse herbaceous plants species can grow due to increased moisture.
Eucalyptus leaves are inedible to all except Koalas and the fallen leaves are aleopathic preventing the growth of other plants that are sorely needed if diversity is to prevail.
The living conditions provided by the functioning of willows creates habitat, shade, moisture, water retention, erosion control and a stable, reliable habitat for aquatic life and more.
Eucalyptus trees provide habitat for many species but the habitat provided is not lacking in the environment as opposed to the habitat provided by willows which has been degraded beyond liveable in most areas of Australia.
Eucalyptus trees do drink up large amounts of water creating massive trunks that can use up a water supply completely then go into dormancy while waiting for the next rains.
Willows prevent evaporation along wetlands that prevents or prolongs the drying out of wetlands, gullies, creeks and dams. Willows are not drinking up all the water as suggested because they return the water through the small water evapo-transpiration cycle.
Eucalyptus droop their leaves to conserve their water supply not releasing it readily back to the environment. This is all very well for the survival of the Eucalyptus but does nothing for the drought inflicted on the other species of flora and fauna.
Willows hold the riparian systems together binding banks, not only with their large root systems but also with their fine root matting capacity creating a natural carpeting of wetland beds.
Eucalyptus lower the water table making it impossible for species of plants to survive that do not have deep roots.
Willows are deciduous producing organic matter for more riparian regeneration, allowing the sunshine through in the cooler months and providing much needed shade in the summer.
Willows provide a stable wetland which in turn provides a sustainable life source.
Now Weeds of National Significance (WONS) supposedly:
Threaten human health and safety
Threaten pastoral industries
Threaten cropping industries
Threaten forestry management
Threaten water quality and supplies
Threaten infrastructure damage
Threaten plant communities
Threaten cultural values
Threaten tourism
Threaten the community
Threaten recreation and amenities
Weigh it up and make a comment please…….

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:54 pm

Eucalypts are rapidly invasive.
Prevent biodiversity.
Soils beneath them are hot and dry and lack fertility.
They are everywhere as a result of years of burning.

They should be declared WEEDS of National Significance!!!

andy
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: VIC

wons

Postby andy » Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:04 pm

Hi all,
thought I'd dip my toe in the water.
A great read on this blog has been the transcript of Major Mitchell's exploits, and his description of the landscape. Utterly fascinating.
As far as native vs non native, i am starting to understand how much current government policy is so at odds with nsf principles. The amount various governments are spending on willow removal seems crazy. ( and that's about as politely as one can put it )
I've just started reading book 2 ( beyond the brink ) and got to the very relevant bit about how the more fertility there is, the more fire retardant plants you are likely to have, and the more you lose it, the more less fire nuetral species you are likely to have. ( hope i got that right )
It's a great read, and inspires a sense of urgency.

I was involved in Landcare during the 90's, as a city based volunteer.
At first, such was the enthusiasm for reveg, that any old native got planted.Some of the fast growing wattles keeled over within 7-8 years, but they are pioneers afterall .( and were beneficial, no doubt )
Then, many lcg's caught on about using local indigenous species.
I was growing trees in Melbourne for a group and got frustrated at the lack of diversity. ( Eucs and blackwood wattles and not much else )
We ended up collecting local seed and added Hymenanthera, ( which is great for riparian plantings by the way ) Cassinias, Bursarias, Dodoneas,Prostantheras, various wattles, etc.
Looking back, fortunately most of these are fire nuetral, since Eucs aren't.
Sorry to digress so much, but i guess in the Native vs non native debate, i reckon there are many non Euc native options.
The comment that Eucs are poisoning our catchments is an eye opener.
But if the advent of nsf has taught me anything, it is that you have to question conventional wisdom.
Just my ten cents worth. I'm no expert.

Julian
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:57 pm

Getting back to Eucs

Postby Julian » Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:03 am

I am not sure NSF will be taken seriously if it wants to play the same by calling for the banning of particular plants! Peter Andrews argues that, if we fix the systems then the rest will follow. So why not the same for Eucalypts? If we creat the right conditions, wont other plants get a foothold in the Eucalypt forests? I grew up in the Dandenong Ranges where these Giants reached to the clouds and when it wasnt raining it was dripping from the trees. They have their place, and a willow will never do that. In the Dangenongs there were great concerns with sicamores and Ivey "INVADING" the forests. So my argument is we need to treat ALL plants equally, and if we help repair the systems the rest will follow.

Another point, I do remember talk that some of the deepest topsoil can be found in these forests, so I challenge the argument that Eucalypts poison the soil.

brettmtl
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:42 am
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Postby brettmtl » Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:08 am

Hi Andy and welcome,

Think you hit the nail on the head, about reveg techniques and planting out with Eucs and Acacias, as that is what is left and survived over 60,000 years of fire management.
There is little nutrients and top soil and that is why Eucs and other fire prone vegetation is planted as that is what was there.
To solve this problem we need to look at what was growing in our local areas before Aboriginals arrived and started leaching our lands nutrients.

Exotics have there place, (especially the ladies, sorry the bloke in me came out) and as Peter says a lot of land is so far gone that we need all the band aids and pioneering species we can find to rebalance our landscape.

Once the rebalance is established, then we can look at establishing native rainforest and other species that are truly Australian and preserve that uniqueness.

The biggest problem is trees can live for hundreds of years and some rainforest species, 1,000's of years. To really establish these forests, a succession plan is needed ex.. First 20 year native and exotic blend of pioneering species... Then next 100 years establish original rainforest plants and then... next 400 years, forest will become established, with its own microclimate, biodiversity and fully functioning ecosystem.

Our settlement is only 220 years old and each year we learn more and more about Australia and the environment. Maybe we are on track, not perfectly, but we are looking and people are planting these pioneer species, so that when they have built our soils up rainforest can be established.

Delayed gratification of tree plantings are needed. We will not in our lifetimes, see our plantings reach full maturity and magnificence, but our grandchildren in 7 generations time will and what a legacy it will be. :D

Julian just read your post and totally agree about the Ash forests of the Dandenongs, that is where I spend a lot of time and gather great strength and wisdom from these forests. The diversity and depth of top soil is phenomenal. Recently found a blue worm, like flourescent blue in some mountain ash soil. I don't even know what it was. That is one tiny example of the richness of these forests.

I think Duane you need to clarify what Eucs you want listed as weeds

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Euycalypts

Postby Shirley Henderson » Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:43 pm

Hi Julian, I am not familiar with the Dandenong ranges but it many deep gullies Eucalypts grow so tall reaching for the light and the sun. The understory is then rainforest which creates moisture and soil. There are many contributers to the soil building part and many organisms, animals and fungi. It is diverse and I think that may be the issue at hand. The diversity of plants is the key. Usually on top of hills and mountains there is no need for Eucs to grow so tall but in the gullies and lower regions there is a lot of competetion for sunshine. I am not wholly in agreeance with Eucalypts being on the WONS list but I do agree there are far too many of them in far to many areas due to disturbance, (over 200 years worth) clearing, and interference from humans that have helped create forests that are monocultures of Eucs. I do not however agree that Willows canever belong because I think that willows are what is going to help restore riparian areas. Eucalyptus can't do that in a reasonable time frame to undo the damage that has been done. When there used to be pristine areas all may have been working well in the natural systems but if we are ever to see any balance return to the disturbed eco systems it not going to happen in a hurry with Eucs. Have you got a spare thousand years. Not only us but many species of animals and important parts of the jigsaw puzzle could be lost forever by then. Lasty I think the list of WONS should be on the list of WONS. ha ha! :lol:
Shirley

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:30 pm

In a past life I was doing a Ph D on rain forest speciation in the NQ rainforest area of Davies Creek.

I worked with the the modern fathers of rain forest research, Prof Len Webb and Geoff Tracey.

They operated a two man division of rain forest research with CSIRO in Indoorapilly. Geoff passed away some time ago and Len recently deceased.

I also worked with Prof Joe Connell from UCLA on a rain forest plot where we had every tree and plant mapped over 5 acres.

We had 100 diferent tree species/acre with NOT one of those trees replicated more than once/acre.

In my studies I observed that Eucalpyts made up 1% of that rainforest mix...it was the green cadagi E.torelliana.

If at a time when rainforest covered vast areas of the continent all the Gum family were only 1% of the biodiverse plant mix they are now spread right across the continent as the dominant tree group.

40,000 years of burning affected and changed our landscape.
220 years of white settlement has changed it even further for example, we had rain forests that ran from Melbourne to CapeYork from the coast and inland to Bowral, Dorrigo, Atherton etc. Now only 0.25% of that rainforest remains.

We have destroyed 99.75% of that in just 220 years!!!

Something has to fill the gap. Eucalypts have filled a lot of that gap, just as other plants try to do when the landscape is changed. We call them weeds. Gums are performing the same roles.....do we not call them weeds then.

The logic would seem to suggest so.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

WONS

Postby Shirley Henderson » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:23 pm

In regards to WONS, any plant is at risk of being put on THE LIST. It is more than likely only a matter of time before all non-native plants are on it. As Duane has kindly pointed out if the most beneficial plant WILLOW can be on THE LIST and the dominating dangerous Eucalyptus is free to take over where ever it can there is no real management taking place. To say because a plant is native it must be admired, adored and preserved wherever it grows is not sensible land management.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that certain people in charge remove and destroy many native plants in there surge to make money out of clearing land and selling it off for housing without fore-thought for the consequences. I should say they are well aware of the consequences but that is not their concern. We have tree preservation laws that are overridden at the drop of a hat for the sake of profit all year around. Yet when someone like Peter Andrews or Duane dare to condemn any native plant of not belonging they are considered mad or Un-Australian or Un- educated or just plain ridiculous. During my time of working with the land, with plants and gaining what ever education I can about the subject I have found Peter Andrews Natural Sequence Farming Techniques to be the most sensible I have ever come across. For one I do not like seeing the environment destroyed and Peter’s methods restore health to the land. I do not like seeing water becoming a scarcity that we have to buy when it should be one of those naturally freebies that we all need to survive, this is not a commodity but a need that should be freely available to all living creatures. NSF returns the natural water systems to the land, restores hydrology and allows us to have water available as needed. Politics and business seem to find a way to put a price tag on everything so they can sell it too us. They want water to be scarce so we have to buy it from them. Politicians are not providing basic needs to us. Near Sydney where I live I have to pay outrageously high Registration fees so that the roads authorities can provide us with roads but then when they do make roads they charge us tolls to use them. In one quarter alone my husband had to pay $600 just to drive to the city and back to work. So called WEEDS are not a problem but the chemical companies want you to THINK that they are so you buy THEIR chemicals which poison OUR landscape. Yes vegetation has to be managed, but sensibly and exotics are NOT our enemies but in many ways they are what can help us restore this landscape to health and production. I guarantee that out of all the hard and fast Native plant lovers that I have ever met they do not have 100% native plants on their own land. I sell exotics in one of my jobs and remove them in another. As Peter and Duane say time and time again we have to look at the function that is being performed by all plants individually and together. Let’s rid the country of WONS and focus on HEALTH of our landscape. One example of an area I photographed recently was full of Privet along a creek. The Privet was cleared now the cool flowing creek area that was a fantastic habitat has dried up completely, the sun blares through to the once moist creek area and a number of different plants are growing. The only thing that was achieved was the habitat was changed.
Wildlife was displaced.
A different set of plants began.
The water evaporated and no follow up was planned.
The area is now hot instead of a cool refuge.
A fabulously functioning system was destroyed, why….because someone complained!
Let’s really look at this issue of weeds with open minds and closed pockets. Let’s consider our health, the health of the landscape and the future of this country. Let’s look to new answers as the old ones are NOT WORKING but they sure are lining the pockets of business.
Don’t let the profiteers convince you that they are. LOOK for YOURSELF!
Shirley

duane
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Postby duane » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:31 pm

A quick google search revealed that the monoculture of gum trees is a problem weed in the USA (especially California, Hawaii), South America, Spain, Greece, and New Zealand to name but a few.

Here is the list complied by the Global Compendium of Weeds:


Eucalyptus mortoniana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus aggregata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus alba (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus albens (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus amygdalina (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus angophoroides (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus argillacea (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus argophloia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus astringens (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus bicostata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus botryoides (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus brassiana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus bridgesiana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus brockwayi (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus caesia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus calcicultrix (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus calophylla (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cambageana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus camphora (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cinerea (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus citriodora (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cladocalyx (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cloeziana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus coccifera (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus conferruminata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cordata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cornuta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus costata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus creba (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus crebra (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus crenulata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus cypellocarpa (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus dalrympleana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus deanei (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus deglupta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus delegatensis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus dendromorpha (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus diversicolor (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus elata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus erythronema (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus eugenioides (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus fastigata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus ferruginea (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus fibrosa (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus ficifolia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus forrestiana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus fraxinoides (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus glaucescens (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus globoidea (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gomphocephalus (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus goniocalyx (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gracilis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus grandis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gregsoniana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gummifera (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus gunnii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus hemiphloia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus intertexta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus johnstonii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus kondininensis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus largiflorens (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus lehmannii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus loxophleba (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus macarthurii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus maculata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus maidenii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus marginata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus microcorys (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus microtheca (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus miniata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus moorei (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus muelleriana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus nicholii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus nitens (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus nitida (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus nova-anglica (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus obliqua (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus occidentalis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus ovata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus paniculata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus parvifolia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus pauciflora (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus perriniana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus pilularis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus piperita (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus polyanthemos (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus populnea (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus preissiana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus propinqua (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus pulchella (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus pulverulenta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus punctata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus raveretiana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus regnans (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus resinifer (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus resinifera (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus risdonii (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus robusta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus robustus (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus rodwayi (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus rubida (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus rudis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus salicifolia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus saligna (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus scoparia (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus sieberi (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus spathulata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus spp. (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus striaticalyx (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus tenuiramis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus tereticornis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus tetrodonta (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus torelliana (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus torquata (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus umbra (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus umbrawarrensis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus urnigera (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus urophylla (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus viminalis (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus wandoo (Myrtaceae)
Eucalyptus youmanii

CJW
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:33 pm
Location: Viet Nam

Eucs and Acacias in Viet Nam

Postby CJW » Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:08 pm

Just started on an organic/sustainable ag project to the north east of Hanoi and visited an Oz sponsored "Farm Forestry" nursery project. (':shock:')Shocked to find tens of thousands of Eucalyptus urophylla and cloned Acacia Manguim as the Oz contribution to forestry in Viet Nam. Out in the field I saw clay subsoil hillsides, devoid of any form of topsoil, covered in these weeds having been funded to the tune of millions of OZ$ for "Research Projects" by boffins.
The war may be long over but this new assult on the environment rages on here in Viet Nam and most of the rest of SE Asia from my previous observations.
I am hoping to slow down this insanity and introduce a diverse range of useful plants from around the world into the environment here. This is to be done without any chemical/ industrial style inputs and lucky for me, here at a small NGO I have met a small but dedicated group of likeminded individuals, keen to give it a go.
We are about to begin on a plant nursery, dry composting toilets, wood fired outdoor Bread/Pizza oven and landscape and building designs with a view towards building a teaching and training school and possibily an eco-tourism venture on the soon to be flooded river. Yes they are running short of water here too and the government response is to build an irrigation dam for the farmers, when we all know it's time to re established this once lush rainforested area with trees again.
Will keep you posted as the project advances and maybe will see you at the "Lakeside" eco-resort and organic cafe :shock: :shock:
Colin Westwood.


Return to “Information for the Day”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest