Eucalypts are really bad in shallow soils - they'll fall over without
a deep tap root. (This is a generalisation - does not apply to
Mallees, Ironbarks and some others).
The redwoods around here don't have big limbs - they are big, fat
conifer sticks with a myriad of small branches at 90deg. to the
trunk. Great for climbing if you can get to the lowest branch.
Eucalypts drop the big widowmakers in the summer - resins seem to
expl;ode in the brach although it's prbably a drying out process
followed by an explosive stress fracture.
Now it is well established that the tallest tree is Eucalyptus
regnans recorded at 144m - it's just that none have again reached
that yet following the depradations of loggers in the late 1800's.
Redwoods are the biggest - because being a softwood, the bole is
much, much thicker to support the height and, more importantly, the
transport of water to that height. A eucalypt of the same height as a
redwood is much skinnier. Oh and we've got older ones too - Huon
Pine. So there.
Oh I love these pissing contests.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 25/05/2008, at 2:11 PM, Moose wrote:
> 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.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|