Posted under local birds & local wildlife
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am sometimes able to tell what people are searching for when they find this blog. Recently a few people have been looking for information or opinions about eucalyptus trees in California, so I thought I’d provide a bit more about the issue, which I have previously touched on in the general context of saving native ecosystems and planting native plants. It’s not that I think one kind of plant is better than another as a general principle — eucalyptus trees are great in Australia and I can lick any man who says otherwise — but rather that invasive non-native plants drive out the native ones, messing up the ecosystem and costing biodiversity. Eucalyptus is a great example, as discussed in an article written by Ted Williams (no, not the .400 hitter) for Audubon a few years ago. There’s not much understory that can survive under eucalyptus trees, since their bark contains toxins — really cool from an evolutionary standpoint, but very bad from a biodiversity standpoint. Usually, all you find under California eucalyptus trees is Algerian Ivy and Himalayan Blackberry. In Australia lots of birds and animals (like koala) have evolved to cope with, or thrive on, eucalyptus, but we ain’t got no koala around here. Birds can nest in eucalyptus, and there are even a very few around here that can feed on them, but on the whole these trees are a disaster in California. Get rid of the eucalyptus, plant live oaks or bay trees instead, and have an understory of sticky monkeyflower or coffeeberry or toyons or any of dozens of other species that can’t survive under a eucalyptus. You’ll see a much more interesting world.
Dave on 23 Jun 2008 at 8:10 pm #
A few years back I took my first trip to the left coast (born in Germany, teen and up spent in Virginia). I’ve traveled the length of the eastcoast and as far west as New Mexico.
Anyway, back to Cali - the first thing that struck me on exiting the cab from the airport was the amazing smell of eucalyptus in the air. It just set a mood that I’ll never forget and everytime I smell the stuff I find myself mentally back in San Diego planning an amazing climbing & camping trip to Joshua Tree.
I won’t debate the environmental impact concerns but I will say this - California is the best smelling state I’ve visited so far.
RK Bose on 22 Jul 2009 at 11:12 pm #
It’s actually a misconception.
Eucalyptus is used by a large number of birds, including native ones, because it provides nectar and edible seeds. The blackberry, non-native though it is, provides excellent cover for birds. I’ve seen coveys of California quail under blackberry, and woodpeckers in the eucalyptus.
There’s a strong anti-eucalyptus lobby which has made a lot of strong statements about the tree. Few of them consider both the pros and cons of the tree. FWIW, the few native areas I’ve seen don’t appear to be more interesting - they have less cover, and fewer birds. Unless you also install feeders.
admin on 29 Jul 2009 at 4:46 pm #
RK, I guess you can include me in the anti-Eucalyptus lobby. I acknowledge that there are some positives to the tree — of course! — but I do think I know enough to say that the positives don’t come anywhere near outweighing the negatives. (Ditto for Himalayan Blackberry, Algerian Ivy, Jubata Grass and Pampas Grass, French Broom and Scotch Broom, and many others). All of these can and do support some birds and wildlife, but all tend to outcompete native competitors and leave the area with less biodiversity. In California, a stand of eucalyptus doesn’t provide anything like the habitat that a stand of Live Oaks does. (I assume that in Australia the situation would be reversed, because native plants, animals, and birds have co-evolved with the species with which they share their environment).
I definitely disagree with the general statement that areas without eucalyptus are less interesting than areas with eucalyptus!
rk bose on 02 Sep 2009 at 5:11 am #
Actually, research shows that eucalyptus forest supports about the same number of bird species as oak forests do, even in California. Birds are more adaptable than people think, and food and cover come from many sources.
Anyway, it’s moot: It’s not usually a choice between eucs and oaks; it’s a choice between eucs and chaparral. Most of the forests are gone; and no one is replanting them. And SOD is spreading through the state.
And there’s also evidence that in many cases, invasives actually increase biodiversity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09inva.html?_r=1
The “invasives” argument is a lot less one-sided than Native Plant supporters believe.
RKB on 11 May 2010 at 7:41 pm #
The myth about eucs killing birds is essentially an urban legend, fueled by eucalyptus-haters (and the Williams article is a good example of such hatred).
For why and how, see this article from the Hills Conservation Network, and the comments.
http://sutroforest.com/2010/04/12/another-eucalyptus-myth-bird-death/
Hal on 23 Jun 2010 at 11:36 am #
Try finding fish in a pond surrounded by Eucalyptus. You won’t. You
will find mosquito larvae though. Brought in as wind breaks and railroad ties, the euc. is still used today as a firewood source and as a quick growing tree alternative. I think planting bays as an alternative would
not be a good idea as they are the carrier of sudden oak death. If possible, plant just oaks and if you can get a valley started, I would choose that one as it grows fast compared to other native oaks. Gather
the acorns in fall and soak in water until the white sprout protrudes thru. Then plant em on a wet day about 2″ under the soil after raking the ground clean of former euc. debris. If deer are abundant, you might have to cover with a metal screen.
Jonathan on 07 Aug 2010 at 3:16 pm #
That same guy goes around a lot preaching his pro-eucalyptus gospel. The biodiversity of eucalyptus forest in San Francisco is nothing compared to the bounty that used to live in those spaces. Among butterflies alone, at least 20 species have disappeared from the San Francisco peninsula since development and invasive species took over, and numerous other species are in danger. NONE of these endangered species utilize the eucalyptus forests that RK is trying to protect, while a number of them could utilize the native habitats that they could be replaced with.