Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Wrong - older eucalypts always rot in the core.
Since they were introduced in the 1850s, I suppose the 'experts' around
here are only expert in the younger trees
> Known to loggers as 'mudguts' because of the material within. Once they have
> a clean inner void they are stronger (a tube is stronger than a rod)
As has already been pointed out, that is not true with the same
material. Hollowing out a rod makes it weaker. You later point that
experience belies that for these trees may well be true due to a change
in the material properties as the hollowing occurs.
Nevertheless, the experts, hereabouts, and my almost 40 years experience
living under or in close proximity to them indicates that they are not,
in fact, all that stable and reliable. In addition to the occasional
"widow-maker" limbs they drop just to keep us on our toes, they also
simply fall down.
> and provide a habitat for birds, possums and bats. That's a very poor
> assessment of relative strength and health.
>
Our different experience may be because of a mismatch between the trees
and the climate, soil and/or terrain. I gather there are something like
700 species, adapted to all sorts of situations. Perhaps the ones here,
originally chosen for Southern and Central Calif. are nsimply a poor
match for NorCal near the coast, for steep slopes, etc. I fairly
regularly see some of the 150ish year old wind breaks in rural areas.
They are already pretty ratty looking in places and missing quite a few
"teeth".
> I know where there are some fine old exotic redwoods around here - don't
> think we'll pull them out just because they drop a bit of litter
I am very familiar with both trees in this local - and redwoods are
compulsive neatnicks compared to our Eucalypts (mostly blue gum, I
think). they also don't drop huge limbs at random times
> and might fall over sometime in the next hundred years or so.
>
HUH? [The redwood] "is an evergreen
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen>, long-lived, monoecious
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_sexuality> tree
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree> living for up to 2,200 years, and is
the tallest tree in the world, reaching up to 115.5 m (379.1 ft) in
height and 8 m (26 ft) diameter at breast height." A century is nothing
much to a redwood. The really big ones in areas never logged make any
Eucalypt I've ever seen look tiny. they are hard to imagine even when
you've seen one. The next visit is still a surprise. Like some other
natural things, photographs just fail to convey the scale.
> Harrumph!
>
Same to you! And many happy returns. :-)
> Would love to get rid of all the wretched Monterey Pines thought (P.
> radiata).
I wonder why anyone imported them? They are nothing special in their
native habitat. Ah. I see from Wikipedia that they are used for
commercial forestry in a different climate, where they grow like weeds
(quite literally, I see). In their native, foggy, windy habitat, they
grow neither particularly fast or tall. Some wind bent groups are
fairly picturesque.
What I love are the Monterrey Cypress. They create shapes and textures
unique to them, as far as I know - and which I find extremely pleasing.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Point%20Lobos/slides/_MG_0300.html>
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Point%20Lobos/slides/_MG_0431.html
So far, I've only made a couple of tiny revisions on Wikipedia, but I
see its entry for the Monterey Cypress is badly wrong about range.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupressus_macrocarpa>
There are pockets of them along the Sonoma and Mendocino County coasts,
ranging far North of the Monterey area. Some are in windbreaks, but
others are in what appear to be old, long established stands in
particular climate niches.
I don't seem to have any images of the Northern ones on the web. Time to
dig.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|