Are Eucalypts Weeds?
Conservation, Land, Medicinal Plants, Plant Systems, Regional Water Cycle, Trees — by Ecofilms July 29, 2010
For many years they’ve been seen as a symbol of pride in Australia. Expatriate writers in the 50s and 60s would write about returning to Sydney by ship and about being greeted by the smell of wafting gum tree leaves as they waxed lyrical about the nostalgia they felt for home.
Authorities still plant them everywhere. In parks, next to footpaths, street corners, new housing development estates, Eucalypts are as Australian as the Emu and the Kangaroo. They are seen nearly everywhere and nobody seems to take them as a threat in Australia.
But should Eucalypts be re-examined as a noxious weed?
Supporters of Natural Sequence Farming describe Eucalypts as:
- It is invasive
- It burns
- It’s alleolopathic
- Its residue fails to break down
- It’s a monoculture
- It’s poisoning and killing all of our catchments
- It prevents biodiversity from growing beneath it
Peter Andrews thinks so and gives them a blast at Mulloon Creek recently whilst we were filming at the field day held there. In this video clip he gives a frank assessment of their worth in planting along river beds. Oddly enough its the humble Willow tree that he loves and has plenty of time for, replanting them along creek beds. This has brought him at odds with Government authorities who have declared willows as noxious weeds and are ripping them out of creeks and rivers.
We filmed Mr Andrews hugging the trunk of a willow for the cameras as he said,
“If I had a daughter, I’d name her Willow!’
Government authorities in Land, Parks & Conservation declare Willows as rampant invaders and believe Peter Andrews’ methods are disruptive of biodiversity and the natural ecosystem. Tony Coote of Mulloon Natural Creek Farms where willows are grown on the creek beds is a firm supporter of Peter Andrews and his methods of land management and sees no evidence of Willows threatening landholders downstream.
Comments (15)
Now I understand, when I was to Madeira I was not at all impressed by the biodiversity there. It was of course because the Portuguese cut down all the native forests and planted eucalyptus, to get rid of the mosquito plague.
Comment by Øyvind Holmstad — July 29, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
If you download google earth and zoom in on the rivers and gullies (especially in around the Snowy Mountains) you see the dried up and eroded river gullies everywere. Every so often there’s a big green plant right in the middle of the river channel (a willow) and for the next 100m downstream there’ll be no erosion and it almost looks like the green is seeping down the hill. Its amazing what a difference these trees make!
Comment by Jess — July 30, 2010 @ 8:31 am
There are hundreds of eucalypt species and many of them are excellent for firewood, fenceposts and other uses.
We are next to a National Park in the SW of WA where the eucalypt forest (eucalyptus marginata, patens, diversicolour and calophylla) is one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world. There is a thriving understorey in the dense forest that lives on the layer of decomposing mulch which breaks down beautifully.
We have revegetated areas of our property with local eucalyptus species that require no care after planting, being perfectly adapted to the soils and climate. We have also used other West Australian species for specific purposes (E. wandoo for posts (one of the hardest timbers in the world and termite resistant) and E. gomphocephala for firewood (gives off so much heat when burnt that people have melted their pot belly stoves – use with care, also used for butchers blocks).
Our honey comes predominantly from eucalyptus flowers, principally E. calophylla.
We have problems with some old E. camaldulensis (river red gums) that are probably the same trees Peter Andrews is referring to. They seed prolifically and could be defined as a weed over here. We cut them for firewood and plant other species under and around them to reduce potential seeding opportunity.
Don’t write off a whole genus of plants because of one or more species.
Generalisations are more dangerous than any one species.
Jamie
Comment by burnside — July 30, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Peter Andrews is doing a lot of good things, but his anti-eucalypt stance mirrors that of Clive Blazey of Diggers (one of the reasons I gave up my Diggers membership).
Are eucalypts invasive?-how do you tell if a natural part of (most) ecosystems in this country is invasive? What are the criteria for invasive plants?
It burns-yes, so do a lot of other plants with high volatile oil concentrations. Are we going to ban all members of the Myrtaceae family because of that?
It’s allelopathic-if it stops other seedlings from growing near it, it’s only doing what a good evolutionary strategy demands-eliminating competition.
It’s residues fail to break down-wrong! Breakdown is slow, yes, but it happens eventually, otherwise we’d be up to our ears in the stuff.
It’s a monoculture-I live on a hectare of remnant heathy/grassy woodland vegetation. There are 150 plant species there-only 4 of those species are eucs.
It’s poisoning and killing all our catchments-I can’t comment on that one-so where’s some evidence?
It prevents biodiversity from growing beneath it-well, as I said above, I have 146 locally indigenous species growing under the eucs on my property. There’s not a bare piece of ground to be seen. If I clear walking tracks anywhere, I have to continually keep them open-something (not always another euc) will self-seed and grow there.
Comment by Bev Courtney — July 30, 2010 @ 1:54 pm
Before condemning an entire species, I think its important to look at the overall context. Yes, eucalyptus trees could be classified as weeds, however it is the human miss-management of the land that opened the way for it. I can see nothing positive to be gained from labeling another tree a weed and making it the “enemy”, blaming it for the dire situation that people have created for themselves. So it follows that people are the ones who could help the forests back to ecological balance. It would be a good start to allow people to manage the forests, thin the eucalyptus and introduce a diversity of native species.
The argument for willows (sterile hybrid variety) as a restorative pioneer in damaged water systems has been scientifically proven if used properly and in conjunction with earth-works and followed up with native species. It really is a matter of distributing the information through the bureaucracy… and changing some deep and politically entrenched but uneducated views of land use.
Comment by Aaron — July 30, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
Condemnation of the species is not what this is about. It is about the over population of eucalypts as brought about by a number of factors thoroughly explained by Peter Andrews in his books. And the issue, the continuing exacerbation of the problem by ignorant groups of people – usually government. He also explains that the willows – among many other benefits – recondition the soil to the point were the native species of casuarinas and such can start to grow there naturally once more, where before they were dying off due to so much erosion and leaching of fertility. Here is an example of the eucalypt problem: the local national park here; the You Yangs, which is a small group of mountains surrounded by some flat areas of forest. On the mountainous parts the vegetation is a mixture of acacias, casuarinas, and other shrubs and bushes interspersed by some gum trees – some of which are stately majestic specimens that have obviously been there for a long time – it is very beautiful. The flat parts on the other hand have obviously been cleared at some stage and were replanted almost entirely with eucalypts, in perfectly straight rows – if you stand at the top and look out over the plantation you can see all the trees are in straight lines – it looks ridiculous and not natural at all. They are overcrowded and instead of being the majestic tree they are supposed to be, they end up tall, spindly and in monoculture. I have noticed other areas around here where the gums have been overplanted and it is always barren underneath them, and extending out for quite a few meters beyond them, there is hardly any grass or even “weeds” growing there. I think that Peter Andrews definitely knows what he is talking about and doing. His ideas should be implemented on a large scale – such as the Murray River system. If only common sense was more common – problems could be solved much more easily! Peace.
Comment by Steve — July 31, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
This discussion illustrates the two camps of Permaculture, those who are all about natives first and those who don’t subscribe to the “weed mentality” and use what they deem the best fit for a given task or system. I started in the former but have moved a lot further towards the later camp the more I read and the more I think about the topic. Because Permaculture can be quite a thinking mans pursuit it is bound to develop different ideological positions.
I use to marvel at our modern science and how many lives we could save or give quality of life to and how we could bend the natural world to or will with terms of modern agricultural production. But as I age I see fundamental flaws in both. Its hard to convince a Permaculturist about the latter but the former is harder and tied into why I have dropped the “weed mentality” when it comes to my view of plants and developed a there are no weeds approach to seeing nature.
With my bees and animals I don’t breed the sick ones back into the gene pool. If I have a colony that is not profund and does not collect a lot of nectar compared to other colonies I will let them starve out and die out of the gene pool rather than bring their traits back in. I develop healthier stock on a continual basis no matter what the new stressor this season brings into the mix I keep following evolution of the stock selecting those genetic expressions that survive and thrive. The same with selective collection of open pollinated seeds. Yet as humans we don’t apply the same to ourselves, the more we learn in our science the more we save the weaker genetic expressions of ourselves and this is to our future detriment of reintroducing the genetics back into our own gene pool further down the line.
Weed mentality is ingrained into us through marketing practices of chemical companies that needed an outlet for their products after the war, so we wage war on nature. I see the natives movement as a further outgrowth of that. What is a native? We need to draw borders and separate this single planet into us versus them instead of us all together. We need to define something as pre-existing within a bordered area. Pre-existing when? Before we arrived? Only a century before we arrived? When do we draw a line? The artificial border of ocean has created a protected environment within Australia, but is it for the better? If you have another life form that succeeds where others fail, it forces the weaker plant to adapt or die out of the gene pool. Is Australia always going to be surrounded by water? What happens long after we are gone with movement of the plates? If we have another land bridge or a colliding with another continent and cross species mixing is it then ok? Is doing the mixing ourselves meaning that it is not ok?
There are lot of questions and I don’t have all the answers but I do know that I’ve become a lot of answers but I do know my view on weeds and weed species has changed quite a bit over the years. So I wouldn’t say with this article I am against eucalyptus tees and I wouldn’t say I was against willow trees or want to make sure they were sterile varieties only in use. I’ve lost a lot of my border mentality or us versus them and become a bit more like mother earth in my philosophical stance of “have at it and let the strongest one win” and continue life on the planet as a whole.
Cheers,
Peter
Comment by Peter Dilley — July 31, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
” Here is an example of the eucalypt problem: … The flat parts on the other hand have obviously been cleared at some stage and were replanted almost entirely with eucalypts, in perfectly straight rows – if you stand at the top and look out over the plantation you can see all the trees are in straight lines – it looks ridiculous and not natural at all. They are overcrowded and instead of being the majestic tree they are supposed to be, they end up tall, spindly and in monoculture. I have noticed other areas around here where the gums have been overplanted and it is always barren underneath them, and extending out for quite a few meters beyond them, there is hardly any grass or even “weeds” growing there.”
Steve, what you are describing there is a problem of design not eucalypts i.e. the people who planted the trees created the problem, not the trees themselves.
I have alot of respect for Andrew’s work, but there is no need to demonise gums and grant sainthood to willows. It’s just about what works in each particular situation. How can you not have eucalypts in native eucalypt forests?
Differentiating where eucalypts work and where they don’t seems a more productive approach than condemning all gums on the basis of problems in some situations.
Comment by pebble — July 31, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Willows are a nightmare for Platypus…
Comment by Will B — August 1, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Thank you for your perspective Peter! I bought some Xmas trees some years ago, Abies lasiocarpa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abies_lasiocarpa , Abies concolor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abies_concolor , Picea engelmannii http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picea_engelmannii and Larix sibirica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larix_sibirica , and planted them around my cabin. This was because I thought it was unfair we only have one kind of spruce, Picea abies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_spruce and one kind of pain, Pinus sylvestris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_sylvestris here in Scandinavia.
In comparison I think you in North America alone will find more than 30 species of spruce. This is because they have the Rocky Mountains going along the continent and no ocean dividing the continent, while we have both the Alps and the Mediterranean Sea. Thus the wood species here had no retreat between the ice ages, then disappearing. The Norwegian Spruce came here only a couple of thousand years ago from Russia.
After I became a permaculturist (only by heart, not by diploma) I felt some guilt for this and didn’t wanted to talk about it anymore. But maybe what I did was not so wrong after all?
Comment by Øyvind Holmstad — August 2, 2010 @ 12:57 am
Eucalypts belong in the forest, as far from urban habitation as possible. It’s a flammable tree. And as logic would dictate, not many people want a petrol station next door for the same reason. That’s not to say they are useless, but it does mean it’s rational that councils stop planting huge stands of match sticks close to urban centres (Canberra 2003 was a combination of eucalypts and pine plantations). As cities expand and urban centres encroach on native forests, fire risks will only increase, so growing lower risk plants is the smarter option, regardless of native or non-native status.
In terms of productivity, the eucalypt is a winner and a loser. The carbon that it stores comes in the form of wood, not so much leaf matter or soft plant tissue. So if you want timber, plant a eucalypt. If you want a successful food forest or pasture, you need trees that produce abundant soft plant tissue with high turnover and a good decay rate. That’s where deciduous trees (such as willows, ash, locusts, most cold climate fruit trees) and tree legumes (native acacias) have the edge on eucalypts. These can be pruned almost yearly to form hugely productive pollards and coppices that produce mulch, compost, fruit/nuts, and timber. This is why Peter Andrews would rather plant a deciduous plant over a eucalypt, because he wants soil fertility and productivity.
Comment by Adam T — August 2, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
Hi Will B. Willows are not a nightmare to platypus. I live at Mulloon Creek where the Andrews segment was shot, and in fact the only places in the creek where platypus live are right under willow trees.
A friend of mine works for the Department of Sustainability and environment. He’s studied Environmental Science and bought into the prevailing pro-native, anti-willow dogma. When he came to visit the farm and observe the work of Peter Andrews, on seeing the clear water and biological diversity at the base of the system, my friend said “If it takes willows to create a riparian zone as healthy this, then I’m sold”
We have an open day at the end of October so anyone who lives nearish should come and see for yourselves.
All the best,
Cam Wilson, Mulloon Creek Natural Farms
Comment by Cam Wilson — August 3, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Hi, I went to a field day a couple of years ago that had Peter Andrews and Dr Christine Jones there and it was mentioned that before european settlement the pollen found in lakes showed that eucalypts were a very small percentage, I think maybe 1% of the total vegetation. There was more diversity than now. It was also mentioned that the aborigines before that time, for a long time, burnt forests as their way of hunting for food, and those species that survived needed fire to propagate. I’d like to think that if we can change the hydrology of the land by following Peter Andrews Natural Sequence farming, we should be able to improve our fertility of the land, by using all kinds of humus creating and soil improving trees, shrubs etc. I believe that willows don’t cause the problems that some say, I think that the artificial fertilizers and poisonous chemicals that are used on pasture leach out of the soil(when it rains)and cause the damage, pollute and erode the waterways, because those chemicals destroy the ability of the soil microbiology to do its job, which is to retain and build up fertility and keep the water in the soil. I think all trees that can improve the health of the soil should be used. Native species are not the only answer. Exotics have a place.
Comment by karen — August 16, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
Generally speaking women are generally speaking. This is the same thought that comes to mind when a genera with as diverse range of species as the Eucalypt is dismissed as all bad. They range from 1 – 2m to 100m or more. Single trunks of 3-4m to wisps of under 100mm. Inconspicuous flowers to some individual flowers as big as your hand. Such a range of plants can not be classified by denouncing the whole genera.
Indigenous and endemic species are labels invented by man because of the total lack of the understanding of time frame. Both of these terms refer to a moment in time. Ginkgo biloba and Sequoia were at one time endemic and indigenous to various areas of Australia from Tasmania to North Queensland. Neither of these is now considered and Australian native. In England the Scotts pine came from the Mediterranean region of Southern France and moved north as the ice age retreated. By the time man got arround to naming plants it resided in Scotland and they called it Scotts pine.
The climate has and is changing because man has changed the vegetation profiles of the landscape. Desertification occurs through the loss of tree and general vegetation cover that carries moisture inland from the sea. Rainfall is highest at the coast and diminished as you travel inland. Where forest exists from the coast inland the circulating effect of rainfall and evapotranspiration sees water precipitated and then the atmosphere recharged with moisture to carry the rain inland. Think of the rain baring atmosphere as a tumble weed rolling inland but getting smaller as it rolls. The rate that it reduces is directly proportional to quantity and quality of forest it travels across.
The Government and its henchmen what you to believe that all is well and noting has changed and that the indigenous – endemic status quo is still fine and we should not allow foreign plants into the community. Unfortunately the word community is miss understood by them. We have the technology to sustain human organs removed for transplanting. Organs removed form the recipient are stored or kept alive and transported for implantation to the recipient. Both the donor and the recipient are organisms the part is an organ. A tree, Eucalypt or Willow is and organisms in it self but only an organ in the landscape community. Through our need for food and habitation we have cleared the land of the community and we just have the remnant organs left. The landscape community of macro, meso and micro flora and fauna are the human body which we have segmented and depleted and in some areas destroyed.
We need to reestablish the community and only looking to what was once endemic and indigenous plants is a futile effort of tokenisms at best. The artist does not only use primary colours, he blends and mixes to form a kaleidoscope of various hues. This is what we have to do in reestablishing the Landscape Community. Willows will not run rampage across the country and are relatively easy to control. The Some Willows and some other plants such as some Melaleuca and Swamp Cypress and Mangroves can live standing in water. The produce a root mass that filters the dissolved and suspended particles our of the water purifying it. But of equal importance is that they capture those nutrients into the organism and give them back up to the soil. The nutrients taken from the water drive the plants growth and the roots mass of a tree is often many times that of the crown. Poplar and some Ficus up to 5 time Willows 2 to 3 time the crown mass. These roots extend back into the land and are nutrient rich as they die and decompose the enrich the soil with organics and nutrients that other lesser flora and fauna exploit. The landscape community begins again.
Ignorance of the webwork of nature is the problem we face and the narrow perspective of the policy makers. We can never hope to change views we mast always strive to adjust views and behavior. Rivers are drains and as such require lungs to remove the residues of agriculture and mans excretions the Weeping Willow is an ideal servant to help us with out needs. Once we learn to live in harmony with our environment we can reintroduce the River Red Gum to then once again pristine healthy river and creek systems.
Nicholas J. Rivett
Dip Hort 1968 Burnley. R.F.S.Cert Arb.(Eng.) 1973, Cert Arb. 1974 (Merrist Wood Eng.) MAIH
Comment by Nicholas Rivett — August 27, 2010 @ 8:50 am
One assumes that there are fewer eucalypts since european settlement, due to extensive land clearing. If this assumption is correct then all river sytems would have been posioned and no fish would have been present in our rivers – I don’t think so! Or is he talking about introduced fish species, many of which have a negative impact upon our native species? “Only a few birds and the occasional honey bee”(an introduced species)! I wonder if the clearing of native vegetation has anything to do with the rapid decline of Australia’s natural biodiversity – hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Comment by Sandy — August 27, 2010 @ 10:22 am
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment