Re: Eucalyptus Trees: Good or Bad?
Hooray, now I'm game to speak up as a number of people have come to the
defence of the good old gum tree.
Joe, Michael Moira et al are absolutely on the money of course when they
speak of the astonishing variety of Eucalyptus species. Except in the
largest parks, on farms etc, the forest giants such as viminalis,
camaldulensis, globulus etc shouldn't be planted.....in the right place
they're majestic and rewarding.[they are also well known as branch and limb
droppers. What we call widow-makers]
Your Sunset Western Garden Book has a great section on Eucalypts [one of the
best I've seen on the garden-worthiness of various species]. Of the biggies
it likes melliodora as a well behaved tree.
It has a large number of mallees, marlocks, moorts and yates, all names for
various small Eucalypts.[they sound like a witches coven]. Of these I would
say that E. caesia, macrandra, forrestiana,platypus and preissiana are
outstanding, and ficifolia and leucoxylon for the birds. Leucoxylon "rosea"
is one of the longest flowering nectar rich trees and I would imagine your
hummers would love it.
Yours, from the gum-tree forested south-west corner of Australia.
Margaret.
Margaret Moir
Olive Hill Farm
Margaret River, Western Australia.
www.wn.com.au/olivehill
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Seals <gardenguru@yahoo.com>
To: <davidfeix@yahoo.com>; <medit-plants@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Eucalyptus Trees: Good or Bad?
> David, et. al.:
>
> 1) Eucalyptus, from a landscape design use view, are
> like so many other genera of plants: there are so
> many, it is easy to use the wrong one in the wrong
> place (or is that a double negative?). I compare them
> to Juniperus, Acer, bambusoids, etc..
>
> The challenge, as you have noted, is to find the RIGHT
> one for the site. And there are plenty of RIGHT ones.
> Even professional plantsmen (including architects)
> have a rough time "specking" appropriate species, much
> less asking an amateur to select the RIGHT one from a
> measly handful at the local nursery. Good growers
> ignore this comment: there are too many bad growers
> who grow only what will grow quickly and easily in a
> nursery container and that almost always leaves the
> wrong kind from home gardens.
>
> In addition to the handful which you suggested, there
> are a dozen more (at least) that deserve more
> "marketing".
>
> 2) On the other hand, I am not the romantic that
> believes we should continue to plant (or prevent
> destruction of) Eucalyptus glob. and vim. just for
> their "historical" value. If anything, I'm afriad
> they're the monument to our many mistakes in
> Eucalyptus use.
>
> 3) I have not seen any evidence either for or
> against, but I believe that among the Eucalyptus,
> there are those which "gobble" water and those which
> do not.
>
> 4) Eucalpytus, from a weed standpoint, are
> "opportunists and pioneers", as are almost all of our
> worst weeds. They sprout where the land has been
> modified, graded, interrupted, disturbed, or otherwise
> raped. My personal observation is that Eucalyptus are
> great weeds on sites where the natives already have
> been disposed of. I have not seen ANY sites where
> Eucalpytus have invaded strong colonies of California
> natives nor have I seen ANY sites even where
> Eucalyptus are "pushing out" week colonies of natives.
>
> Keep in mind that I am a firm believer in PRESERVING
> native plants. Where the natives have long been
> vanquished, however, I feel it fair to be able to put
> in any and all "appropriate" plants (= those native to
> Mediterranean climates). Just as we build a 2-story
> home rather than live in caves.
>
> Joe Seals
> Santa Maria, CA
> Where the cool, moist winter of a typical
> Mediterranean climate sits upon my house.
>
> --- david feix <davidfeix@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>
