It may surprise even Ian that I have known
the person to whom he refers from my primary and high school days from the late
50’s, early 60’s. I too have the utmost respect for him as a
botanist and general natural historian. He was also one of the people who
replied to me concerning my recent campaign to try and clean up the rude and
arrogant remakes from some people on the chatline, stating that ”he was
appalled by some of the comments sent to the chatline”. His email was
forwarded to the COG Committee. But I digress.
One thing however that has annoyed me with
this debate on removing trees is the comment from some government official - as
reported in the Canberra Times and on TV news bulletins several weeks ago –
is that many of the trees had reached 80 years of age. There are numerous
studies published in the 1970’s, at the height of the woodchip debate, that
show it takes Eucalypt trees a MINIMUM of 80 – 120 years to
develop hollows suitable for larger wildlife to use. Dropping branches is one
way that this process begins as it allows organisms into the tree. I should add
that if a tree is dead and in an area frequently used by the public, then I have
no qualms with its removal. I would however like to see it replaced with something
suitable.
Why 80 years old is the criteria for
removing trees is beyond me. When I was growing up in O’Connor in the
late 1960’s there were many mature trees, mostly Yellow Box, Eucalyptus melliodora and Blakeley’s
Red Gum, Eucalyptus blakeleyi that
were growing near my parent’s house many of which are still there today.
All had extensive hollows. Very occasionally they would drop a branch. I would
suggest that these trees are now well over 150+ years old and appear to still
be in good health. There is also a Blakeley’s Red Gum in a neighbour’s
yard near my house in Kaleen that is probably well over 150+ years old. It has
been checked for termites and none were found. A few smaller dead branches were
recently removed and no rot was found. 80 years indeed!
I may be wrong here but I feel that the
selection of species for planting in parks and as street trees in the past has
been wrong. In many areas Eucalyptus
mannifera, the Brittle Gum, has been the overwhelming choice,
probably because it is a “pretty” tree because of its nice smooth,
white bark, and is quite quick growing relative to other species. However it is
not the greatest bird attracting tree. As much of Canberra is built on the supposedly more fertile
lowlands and we have reserved the poorer hills, perhaps we should be planting
species that occur on these lowlands, such as the Yellow Box and Blakeley’s
Red Gum. If we are to use other non-regional species perhaps we should try the
Mugga Ironbark, Eucalyptus sideroxylon.
Bird species such as the Swift and Superb Parrots and the Regent Honeyeater
would benefit enormously from these tree species. Ian’s comment on the
Corroboree Park Manna Gum is quite right; it is growing in the wrong place. The
other classic examples of trees in the wrong environment are the various Blue
Gums species planted around the local area, e.g. Anzac Parade. They do not like
a dry environment.
I am sure this argument can and will go on
for some time yet. This is just my two bob’s worth (20 cents if you are
not a baby boomer!).
As for Ian’s comment that he may
lose friends over his stand, well all I can say is they are a bloody idiot if
they do ignore him (oh dear, there I go again calling people idiots…..
tut, tut.
Mark
From: Ian Fraser [
Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2009
5:49 PM
Cc: Canberra Birds
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Fw:
Tree in Corroboree
Park - response from TAMS
For what it's worth, one of the leading independent
experts advising on the process is someone I know very well indeed, and have
worked with for a couple of decades. He is not only an unchallenged expert on
tree health, but has done more for conservation at a practical 'on ground'
level than most of us could ever claim to have done, including fighting to save
numerous remnant woodland trees in Canberra
and beyond. It was he who alerted the Commissioner and TAMS to the presence of
the hobbies' nest and the need for a delay.
Nonetheless the entire inside of the tree was rotted out - which of course
makes for great nesting hollows!
While any tree loss is regrettable, let's keep this one in perspective. It is a
planted tree, not native to the immediate area (locally it is indigenous to the
streamlines and sheltered gullies of the Brindabellas and Tidbinbillas). With
respect we might be doing more for conservation if we were to focus more on the
many pre-European trees under threat in suburbia both current and planned.
I trust this doesn't lose me any friends, or cause anyone to mistake me for
someone who doesn't care passionately (and actively) about trees, birds and
biodiversity in general.
Have a relaxing and birdsome end of 2009 and entry to 2010 all!
cheers
Ian
Wendy Whitham wrote:
I emailed TAMS this morning to express concern about
the tree pruning. I asked whether expert advice had been sought in
relation to the nesting birds and also what qualifications the various
"experts" had.
Here's the response I received for what it's worth.
