GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - Scott Fiore has a question about desert trees

Billy[_4_] · 07-04-2008, 10:55 PM posted to rec.gardens

In article ,
(paghat) wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
(paghat) wrote:

Have a look at genus Eucalyptus. There are over 500 species of all
sizes
suited to all kinds of condtions including very hot and fairly dry.
Some
are
very fast growing. If you select the right kind for the climate and
soil
they
can be very durable. Depending on where you are there may or may not
be
much
choice available for sale. I seem to recall there are some specialist
vendors
in the USA.

David

But they are banned in some areas because they present an unusual fire
hazard, each tree a gigantic match waiting to ignite.

I've lived around eucalyptus all my life and have never heard of one
going up in flames. If it is dead and dried out, for sure, but then so
would any tree. My main worry about eucalyptus is being under one in a
high wind (We have them along some roadways in Sonoma County.). They are
kind of brittle and the limbs are huge.

Sonoma County is one of the places where eucalyptus have a proven record
of fire hazard, and one of the first places to experiment on mass removal
and control regrowth of eucalpyts (in Annendel State Park), as they're as
difficult to eradicate as himalyan blackberry is for those of us in the
Northwest. It is a VERY EXPENSIVE multi-year project to remove these trees
from any given area, and the Sonoma experiments figured out how to do it
with a four year project and lots of yucky herbicides without which they'd
never be gotten rid of ever. The emergency need is to get rid of them in
national parks where they are injurious even before they catch fire, and
from areas where they grow near homes.

"The non-native eucalyptus trees are aggressive growers and are
particularly dangerous in a fire. Once ablaze, the gummy trees tend to
explode, spewing out blazing material that can land miles away, sparking
new fires." [UC Berkley News]

Projects exist in Sonoma, Medicino, Marin and other California counties to
get rid of them but only where they pose the greatest threat.

If you can
live in California and know nothing about this, perhaps you need to
broaden your attentiveness to local events.

Very white and patronizing of you.

The point to replacing the eucalyptus is the zeitgeist of the northern
California inhabitants desire to re-establish the original biomes and
ecosystems to the region which are being overwhelmed in the water and on
the land with alien life forms.

If fire were the main concern, we would be pulling out the firs and
pines as well for they show the very same tendencies you attribute to
the eucalyptus when the fire gets into the crown.

When you can smell the eucalpytus, that means its highly volatile oils are
clinging to the ground in the atmosphere. "Eucalyptus oil catches fire
very easily, and bush fires can travel quickly through the oil-rich air of
the tree crowns," a wikipedia artical notes.

In 1991 eycalpytus were the primary fuel threat that resulted in the loss
of 3,400 homes killing 25 people in the Oakland Hills.
Also a large number of pines and considerable dry vegetative fuel lying
on the ground under the trees, which is where the fire started. As I
sure you must be aware that the forest services are now doing controlled
(and, sometimes, not so controlled) burns to get rid of this material as
a preemptive strike. It was this dry litter that allowed the fire access
to the crowns of the trees.
They are rightly
chary of letting the eucalyptus ever again become the dominant tree in the
area. As "fire-prone exotics that push out native species" they are no
loss.

The LIVING tree is a fire hazard, and in fact eucalyptus is adapted to
regrow from the ground after it has completely burned. No need to dry out
at all, which is why in Whittier, California, 3,000 healthy eucalyptus
trees were removed as fire hazards. They are invasive trees as well, and
the 6,000 eucalptus trees removed from hills surrounding the University of
California, Berkeley, as part of their fire prevention project, were in
the main not planted there intentionally.
I think you'll find that they are also high maintenance in an urban
setting because they are continuously throwing their thin bark and pods
which requires routine attention.

25,000 eucalpytus were removed from the Claremont Canyon where they had
not only already proven to be major fire hazards, but being adapted to
regrow after fires much mroe rapidly than can native plants, they were a
menace to the whole ecosystem generally. In Australia eucalyptus
adaptation to fire has insured the survival of forests by growing back
rapidly and reproducing best after a burn. But in western US environments
they out-compete native shrubs and trees and contribute to natural habitat
loss while increasing future fire hazard. A mixed conifer forest will not
burn as rapidly as eucalyptus, and foar this reason in some firebreaks the
tree removed first if not exclusively will be the eucalypts. As invasives
they're hard to get rid of because even cut flush to the ground & routed
out with a wood shredder, they sprout back up like mad.

It's ubiquity and invasiveness is alone reason not to plant the buggers on
purpose, but for fire hazard reason they are banned in many areas in
California, and rightly so.
So you say.

-paghat the ratgirl
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/