Re: Re(2): Eucalyptus Trees: Good or Bad?
- To: ,
- Subject: Re: Re(2): Eucalyptus Trees: Good or Bad?
- From: C*
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:02:10 -0800
David,
I agree with you, more bad rap than they deserve (my early Berkeley
childhood memories of crunching through the leaves at Tilden park, and of
large eucalypts thinly framing bay views from the house windows, these are
precious). Despite all the problems which others will list, they all stem
from poorly chosen or placed trees. In my garden, my favorite is Eucalyptus
sideroxylon "Pink Ironbark", which I'm able to plant under (so far) , and
has beautiful patchy green and pink bark in youth and then beautiful black
furrowed bark (especially nice after rain).
The tree I could do without in my neighborhood is Chinese Elm. Pops up
everywhere.
Laura
Los Angeles
on 3/11/01 12:28 PM, david feix at davidfeix@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I was wondering how other landscape designers in
> warmer parts of the world/other mediterannean climates
> felt about the merits/problems with Eucalyptus trees.
> Unfortunately they have developed an unfair reputation
> here in California as being "bad" trees, for various
> reasons. Many feel that they outcompete the native
> plants of California, can become escaped weeds, are
> more of a fire hazard than other types of trees, can
> lower the water table due to their insatiable thirst
> and deep roots, are now vulnerable to introduced pests
> and early decline due to native pests from Australia
> having arrived in California, and/or are inappropriate
> for California because they aren't native. The end
> result is that the bad press they have received has
> made them a lot less planted than they were in the
> past, and within our lifetimes they may become much
> less a part of the "look" of the urban and
> agricultural California landscape. I feel that this
> would be an esthetic loss, and can't imagine what
> towns like Santa Barbara or Highway 101 through the
> Salinas Valley or Golden Gate Park would be like
> without their ubiquitous Eucs...
>
> I could write an essay why in my personal opinion many
> of these attitudes are unjust, but would fail to
> persuade many true believers of all Eucalyptus being
> bad for California landscapes. I do feel it a bit
> sad that we don't have ongoing plantings of majestic
> species such as E. viminalis as magnificent windbreaks
> or skyline trees in larger parks, and even E. globulus
> can be magnificent in the right setting. Having said
> that, I would not want to plant one in my own
> backyard! Some of the more commonly available Euc's
> that are particularly good for California have fallen
> out of favor, and might include:
> E. polyanthemos/Silver Dollar Gum-great grey foliage,
> and even good as a lawn tree
> E. nicholii/Peppermint Eucalyptus-beautiful furrowed
> bark and willow like foliage, Solano Avenue here in
> Berkeley/Albany used to have these as street trees,
> and although they were damaging the sidewalks in some
> locations because they were not given enough planter
> room, they were beautiful.
> E. ficifolia/Red Flowering Gum-one of the glories of
> coastal California for incredible showy bloom,(equal
> to Delonix regia or Tabebuia for vivid color), and so
> difficult to grow elsewhere, but so easy here in
> coastal California
> E. citriodora/Lemon Gum-beautiful tall growing narrow
> tree with smooth white bark, and can be planted close
> to buildings without damage to foundations, a true
> designer's tree
>
> These are just a few of my personal favorites, and
> none of them are as commonly planted now in the 1990's
> and presently as they were in the 1970's. I'd be
> interested to hear from other people as to their
> favorite Euc's here in California or in other
> mediterannean/warm temperate climates. I also
> remember seeing many species in Arizona which are not
> at all common here in California, and are great medium
> sized, drought tolerant shade trees for hot desert
> climates or harsh situations in general, such as E.
> spathulata/narrow Leaved Gimlet, and E. microtheca,
> both of which are more deserving of being planted here
> in California as well.
>
> Just one note on Eucalyptus globulus as being more of
> a hazard than other trees, it has been conclusively
> proven that Blue Gums are actually less combustible
> than our native Monterey Pines/Pinus radiata,
> especially so in the Oakland Hills Fire of a decade
> ago. Any tall tree in high winds would be capable of
> spreading burning embers, and Blue Gum has less oils
> then many pines. The only trees that did seem to have
> a dampening effect on the spread of fire in the
> inferno, were our native Coast Live Oak/Quercus
> agrifolia, and Coast Redwood/Sequoia sempervirens. In
> may cases these two species were singed, rather than
> burnt to a crisp, and often survived to regrow, while
> other adjacent species were completely consumed.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
on 3/11/01 3:47 PM, Barry Garcia at Barry_Garcia@monterey.edu wrote:
> My main problem with Eucalypts is primarily with E.globulus. they are
> still common in my town, and there's actually an avenue of them along a
> road here. They tend to drop far too many leaves than other trees (well,
> at least the amount seems much larger), their bark is constantly shedding,
> they drop rather large fruits, and they seem more prone to breaking off
> large branches than any of the other trees i see in my city. It also seems
> like it takes forever for the leaf mulch to rot, and you barely see
> anything growing in their dense colonies. While it is magnificent due to
> its size, there really isnt too much more i find attractive about it.
>
>
> The tree is just far too messy for my tastes.
>
>
