--- On Tue, 5/12/09, Graham Turner <> wrote:
> I have just come back from working in plantations on the
> Liverpool Plains of NSW where trees are being planted with
> timber production as the first priority but their value in
> lowering the water table in salt prone areas, carbon
> sequestration and wildlife values are all being highlighted.
> Such plantings are to be commended, but their value for
> wildlife will always be limited due to the areas involved,
> lack of understorey and hollows. And as you say, there is a
> lot of resistance to turning agricultural land into timber
Maybe nesting boxes while the trees are young, and leaving some older trees
when harvesting occurs? Or - planting more than one kind of plant? I'm
reminded of research into dieback in New England where it was found that Sugar
Gliders were the main predators of the bugs that were killing the trees. The
Sugar Gliders needed wattles for food in the seasons where the bugs weren't
around, and the farmers had cleared the wattles, leaving only eucalypts.
Putting Wattles back gave the Sugar Gliders a chance to behave as a natural
control of the bugs.
Even so, isn't "limited" benefit to wildlife better than none?
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)