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.
