Andrew Fildes wrote:
> 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).
>
That's what I've got right here. We're on a shallow overburden on a rock
ridge. My old house across the street had the foundation right on solid
rock - and eucalyptus a few feet down the very steep back yard. Not much
for them to hold onto.
> 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.
>
Yours obviously aren't very big. the branches on a big one are FAR off
the ground.
<http://users.telenet.be/sequoiadendron/en/sequoiasempervirens.html> The
distance between the lower ones would also be a problem. You would need
ladders or climbing gear to go up from branch to branch. Those lower
branches are much as you describe. Except on a big one, those lower
branches would be substantial trees in their own right.
> Eucalypts drop the big widowmakers in the summer - resins seem to explode in
> the brach although it's prbably a drying out process followed by an explosive
> stress fracture.
>
Oops, I forgot about that other reason we shouldn't have eucalypts in
our hills. They are astonishingly flammable in hot weather, with the
plume of oil vapor above them capable of spreading a fire a amazing
speed. As it happens, our generally mild climate often has periods in
early fall where intense heat it carried in from inland valleys by
strong winds. They were certainly a factor in the extent of the Oakland
firestorm of 1991m which destroyed about 3,000 houses and killed 25
people. We watched it eating an area of Oakland form an overlook not far
from our house. You should see trees, not just eucalypts, go up in that
kind of heat -scary awesome.
> 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.
The sites I looked at are often careful to name the coast redwood as the
tallest living tree, which is almost certainly true. As to historical
heights, the lengthy wikipedia entry certainly suggests taller examples
of E. Regnans did exist. On the other hand, no one was going around
measuring tallest trees when the redwood forests were largely clearcut.
The tallest known specimens were only discovered in the last couple of
years in a search of the remaining 4% of the original forests. So it's
likely that taller specimens of S. Sempervirens also existed in the
past. Who knows, the tallest tree ever in existence was probably
unrelated to either. E. Regnans is a faster growing tree, so maybe they
wiill regain the title - after you and I are gone, along with our
pissing match.
>
> Redwoods are the biggest
Ah, ah, precision man. Tallest, not biggest. The "Giant Sequoias",
Sequoiadendron giganteum, of the Calif. Sierra Nevada mountains are the
largest (single organisms, above ground) in total bulk. A little shorter
than the redwoods, they are far bulkier.
> - 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.
>
That's oldish, at 10,000 or so, but nowhere near as old as an aspen in
Utah. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_tree#Clonal_organisms>
In poor California, we can only whup ya by a thousand years or so with
an 11,700 year old creosote bush.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creosote_bush> Course, there are a great
many creosote bushes out in the deserts, and only the one old Huon Pine,
so the edge may spread. ;-)
> Oh I love these pissing contests.
>
Fun, and I learn things.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|