Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Bushwalking topics that are not location specific.
Forum rules
The place for bushwalking topics that are not location specific.

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby MickyB » Tue 10 Jul, 2018 10:17 pm

north-north-west wrote:Anyways, my take is that the only flora and fauna that belong in NPs are those that are inherent aspects of the local natural ecosystem.

What are your thoughts on eastern grey kangaroos, Bennett's wallabies, Tassie Devils and Cape Barren geese on Maria Island - all introduced species?
Sometimes, I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
User avatar
MickyB
Auctorita modica
Auctorita modica
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu 28 Jun, 2012 7:50 pm
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby tom_brennan » Thu 12 Jul, 2018 1:15 pm

Hughmac wrote:The only way exotics fit this definition is if they have cultural significance, which would be a very rare and limited circumstance.


Here's an extract from the Ku-ring-gai Chase Plan of Management (my bold). There would be similar cases in other national parks.

The general 1930’s character of the Bobbin Head picnic areas will be retained. A walking path from opposite the Bobbin Inn to the pavilion will be re-established and replacement plantings of selected introduced trees will be undertaken in Orchard Park. However no attempt will be made to replicate all
the 1930’s plantings or to reconstruct all picnic shelters, pathways or other landscape features of the 1930s.

The Norfolk Island pines defining the edge of the Bobbin Head picnic areas and The Basin will be retained and replacement planting undertaken as necessary.


Though I'd note elsewhere in the document:

The introduced plants outside the house gardens on Barrenjoey Head will be removed.


So it's approached on a case by case basis.
Bushwalking NSW - http://bushwalkingnsw.com
User avatar
tom_brennan
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Wed 29 Sep, 2010 9:21 am
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby Hughmac » Mon 16 Jul, 2018 7:44 pm

Not thrilled at the idea of replanting exotics in NPs, but it does fit the cultural heritage definition.
MickyB - Was in the Flinders Ranges last year, and the indigenous rangers were absolutely filthy about western grey kangaroos displacing the euros from the environment. Just being native to Australia doesn't mean it should be okay anywhere.
Hughmac
Atherosperma moschatum
Atherosperma moschatum
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 9:20 pm
Region: New South Wales

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby MickyB » Mon 16 Jul, 2018 9:51 pm

Hughmac wrote:MickyB - Was in the Flinders Ranges last year, and the indigenous rangers were absolutely filthy about western grey kangaroos displacing the euros from the environment. Just being native to Australia doesn't mean it should be okay anywhere.

I have already stated that I think indigenous plants are the only plants that belong in NPs. I have the same thoughts about animals.
Sometimes, I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
User avatar
MickyB
Auctorita modica
Auctorita modica
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Thu 28 Jun, 2012 7:50 pm
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby Moondog55 » Mon 16 Jul, 2018 9:58 pm

So you are against re-establishment?
Ve are too soon old und too late schmart
Moondog55
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8216
Joined: Thu 03 Dec, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Norlane Geelong Victoria Australia
Region: Victoria
Gender: Male

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby north-north-west » Tue 17 Jul, 2018 9:04 am

MickyB wrote:
north-north-west wrote:Anyways, my take is that the only flora and fauna that belong in NPs are those that are inherent aspects of the local natural ecosystem.

What are your thoughts on eastern grey kangaroos, Bennett's wallabies, Tassie Devils and Cape Barren geese on Maria Island - all introduced species?


The Devils are there as part of the attempt to save the species. Ii can live with that.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 10291
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby maddog » Wed 18 Jul, 2018 1:14 pm

Many are starting to reconsider their previous assumptions regarding native and introduced vegetation and animals. It is now increasingly recognised that introduced flora can provide much needed habitat and food for native critters.

Lantana, as one example:

But what if, despite all the negative influences of this species on floral diversity, the removal of Lantana actually harms native fauna? Our research at the University of New England’s Avian Behavioural Ecology Lab shows that this might indeed be the case in forested areas in NSW.

When Lantana in this area began dying after an eradication program, we noticed a fall in the numbers of certain species such as Antechinus and bush rats. It turns out that this weed provides invaluable habitat for these small native mammals.

So it seems that at least some native species are starting to adapt to, and even rely on, weeds as a food source and habitat. What would happen if, in the name of conservation, we completely removed them from these areas and even our own backyards?

As we’ve seen, the answers aren’t always straightforward, and there’s a chance it could end up doing more harm than good.


https://theconversation.com/hold-the-sp ... life-47848

Also worth remembering that most of these weeds are 'edge' species. There is not really an issue deeper within an undisturbed forest.

Its not just Lantana and those previous little small to medium sized mammals though. Frugivorous birds are known to be particularly fond of Privet and Camphor laurel, in some cases developing a dependency. Cockatoos have discovered a taste for the cones of the Radiata / Slash Pine and the nuts of the Pecan. And bats, well they are truly flying rats are they not?

Our new nature just refuses to conform to ideology. Quite amusing really. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers,

Maddog.
maddog
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun 07 Nov, 2010 4:10 pm
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby north-north-west » Wed 18 Jul, 2018 2:38 pm

And of course there is no consideration that these animals use invasive species where those species can assist them, because of the lack of their usual habitat due to destruction/degradation by human inhabitants.

There is more to science than saying "take away this invasive plant and certain species will suffer in the short term". Sure, they might. But restoring a broader area of the original vegetation will be better for all the animals that depend on it, and over a longer period of time, not just one or two species for a while.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 10291
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Plants/trees – Why are only natives desirable?

Postby Hallu » Fri 20 Jul, 2018 10:12 pm

If it's a national park I do mind non native species. I come to national parks to experience the local species of plants and animals. For example, if one day Australia managed to exterminate all but a few hundred of the feral camels they have in the outback, and created a national park to save the rest, I would disagree.

But outside national parks I don't mind as much. For example, in the Aussie Alps you see a lot of European deciduous trees, I don't remember if it's in Bright or Myrtleford, but in autumn it's quite beautiful. They're not native, but it's fine. I would mind though if there were only European species in a public park though. But all the parks I've visited usually had a mix of natives and imported species. Reading Angus books, it's apparently a rather recent trend, and 30 years ago most public parks and private gardens only had non-native species, because they didn't really cultivate natives, didn't see the benefits. Nowadays it has changed. Natives are better adapted to the soil, need a lot less rain, and are just as pretty. I love them myself, and even though I'm back in France after 3 years in Melbourne, I fell in love with Aussie natives. I do feel a nostalgic tug in my stomach when I see eucalypts, whether in Europe, or on TV. However they're not always used properly in Europe. Last year Portugal had terrible wildfires, in part because they plant too many gum trees, as they're low maintenance and high profit, selling the wood. It's funny that in Australia you see so many European pine plantations, like the ugly one near Lower Glenelg National Park. Why don't the Aussies plant eucalypts here and the Portuguese pines there ? It's crazy.
Hallu
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Fri 28 Sep, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Grenoble
Region: Other Country

Previous

Return to Bushwalking Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests