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

Forums - General Discussion - Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation

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

Around the Network
Rab said:
Pemalite said:

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        

I was thinking about the same when I read that and checked what they could have planted instead.

Bougainvillea would have been a good idea if the soil is still good, they need barely anything after that and are very resistant to dry climates. And their flowers look amazing.

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.



Rab said:
Pemalite said:

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        

I agree, absolutely.
But China is planting non-native tree's anyway... Plus if the goal is to stop desertification and thus the destruction of further habitats for other species, sometimes a wall of non-native flora might be the only way to go, especially flora that is adept at no water and will thrive in fire conditions... It's not a coincidence that a Eucalypt survived the Hiroshima bombing and is still alive today.
https://www.kcpinternational.com/2012/06/hibaku-jumoku/

Eucalypts isn't the only species of tree in Australia that is adept to low-water, fire prone areas, sheoak and various acacias can fill that roll as well.
First I have heard of Eucalypts sucking up water sources... And not all Eucalypts are the same, some provide substantial levels of shade.

More species than just the Koala thrive on Eucalypts, various Possums, many birds, insects and bats are attracted to the nectar rich flowers... And some species are extremely fast growing, which is also what you need in such an environment.

Plus it can be a cash crop as well, the Eucalyptus tree can be used to make bio-diesel, hand sanitizer, disinfectants, wood pulp and a heap more.

Either way, this is pretty irrelevant, China has already chosen it's tree.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.

They would be good choices.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Rab said:

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        

I was thinking about the same when I read that and checked what they could have planted instead.

Bougainvillea would have been a good idea if the soil is still good, they need barely anything after that and are very resistant to dry climates. And their flowers look amazing.

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.

You know your trees, some great suggestions there :)



Pemalite said:
Rab said:

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        

I agree, absolutely.
But China is planting non-native tree's anyway... Plus if the goal is to stop desertification and thus the destruction of further habitats for other species, sometimes a wall of non-native flora might be the only way to go, especially flora that is adept at no water and will thrive in fire conditions... It's not a coincidence that a Eucalypt survived the Hiroshima bombing and is still alive today.
https://www.kcpinternational.com/2012/06/hibaku-jumoku/

Eucalypts isn't the only species of tree in Australia that is adept to low-water, fire prone areas, sheoak and various acacias can fill that roll as well.
First I have heard of Eucalypts sucking up water sources... And not all Eucalypts are the same, some provide substantial levels of shade.

More species than just the Koala thrive on Eucalypts, various Possums, many birds, insects and bats are attracted to the nectar rich flowers... And some species are extremely fast growing, which is also what you need in such an environment.

Plus it can be a cash crop as well, the Eucalyptus tree can be used to make bio-diesel, hand sanitizer, disinfectants, wood pulp and a heap more.

Either way, this is pretty irrelevant, China has already chosen it's tree.

When I mentioned Koalas I was thinking about eating the tree itself like the leaves, you made a good point about nectar, and it's usefulness as a cash crop 

Interesting about that Tree surviving a nuclear bomb, Eucalypts are truly survivors   



Around the Network
Rab said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I was thinking about the same when I read that and checked what they could have planted instead.

Bougainvillea would have been a good idea if the soil is still good, they need barely anything after that and are very resistant to dry climates. And their flowers look amazing.

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.

You know your trees, some great suggestions there :)

Worked for 2 years in a work programme for long-term unemployed people for some local government, mostly as a gardener, and learned quite a lot there about that stuff. Just had to google for the right writing and possible alternatives...