By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

A very interesting approach. But I wonder how many survived in that arid environment - and what the consequences would be if there were to be a fire in those plantations. Like the paper says, planting herbs, grasses and bushes would probably have been better for that region's climate.

Just plant Eucalypts... They thrive in low-water, fire prone areas.

Species endemic to an area should be the first priority, I know with Eucalypts they don't provide a food source for any animal except the Koala, they are very toxic, also due to the downward hanging leaves, they give poor shade in comparison to many other species leading to higher local temps that lead to more water evaporation after rains and of course fires, and in some circumstances they are good at extracting water, so much so they can reduce the water table beyond other species ability to reach it

Once Australia had many broadleaf forests, humans started using fire to open up grasslands and for hunting, eventually it was only the Eucalypt that survived, they spread and decimated many other species, and may have even changed Australia's climate to be dryer 

I wouldn't recommend Eucalypts to any country until they have at least tried their local species first, species that would better support local wildlife   

I once visited Portugal and noticed forests of Eucalypts there, I later found out Eucalypts have been planted there from 1866, the locals see them as weeds that dry up water sources, and harmful to the local environment. Portugal's Oak forests may have up to 70 species of undergrowth plants growing below them, in Portugal Eucalypt forests are lucky to support just 15, it has been devastating to wild life        

Last edited by Rab - on 03 August 2020