Eucalyptus poisoning soil? (I)

Seven key issues on Eucalyptus and alelopathy
Or seven reasons why stating eucalypts poison soils is mostly... bullshit

Gustavo Iglesias Trabado
GIT Forestry Consulting - Consultoría y Servicios de Ingeniería Agroforestal - www.git-forestry.com - EUCALYPTOLOGICS

We frequently receive inquiries at EUCALYPTOLOGICS from concerned gardeners, horticulturalists and even Eucalyptus timber plantation owners in regard to the widespread notion of these trees "being poisonous to the soil" and "dangerous for understorey flora". Today we hope to help throw some light over this myth.

Fig. 1: Healthy understorey plants growing under an Eucalyptus tree. Image courtesy Dan Anderson, www.tree-species.com (Click image to enlarge)

We picked this example to ellaborate on this particularly interesting topic due to the excellent conditions of this tree as evidence of myth being myth. Approaching one hundred years old, the giant E. camaldulensis at Inca Botanical Gardens has had enough time to deplete and poison the soil around it. Doom predictions would say nothing could be growing near it for more than 50 years. Then why a healthy understorey of bromeliads, palms and lush subtropical plants is thriving under this evil Eucalyptus?

Fig. 2: Monumental Eucalyptus camaldulensis growing among palms in the Inca Botanical Garden of Malaga, Spain. Image courtesy Dan Anderson, www.tree-species.com (Click image to enlarge)

The answer could not be more simple: because a plant causing alelopathic effects on its surrounding habitat is not equivalent to a plant keeping infinite arsenals for chemical warfare that affect everything around it.

SEVEN KEY QUESTIONS ON EUCALYPTUS POISIONING SOILS

Question 1: What is alelopathy?

Alelopathy defines a natural type of interaction between different plants, in which one of them has adapted to release to a defined space around it an amount of natural organic chemical compounds during their normal biologic cycle. These alelo-chemicals can, in certain circumstances, add to other natural competitive advantages result of evolutive adaptation to favour the survival, establishment or reproductive maturity of a certain plant against another in a defined space where resources (light, water, nutrients) are limited.

Question 2: Are Eucalyptus alelopathic plants?

Yes, since Eucalyptus are plants and all plants are alelopathic to some extent, as they all release organic chemical compounds when their discarded biomass degrades, and these natural organic chemical compounds leach on to the soil, where they interact with other elements of local biota.

Question 3: Does alelopathy in Eucalyptus have something to do with they being exotic species?

No. In Australia, where they are native, they also cause alelopathic impacts on surrounding flora. And in any habitat you can find native plants causing the same sort of impacts on surrounding biota in varying degrees. Alelopathic and exotic are two independent concepts, and linking both as the two parts of a cause-effect relationship shows deep ignorance on basic biological and ecological processes. Pay attention when you see both terms in the same sentence, statement or argument in a discussion, as it normally will give you hints on the speaker.

Question 4: How do Eucalyptus alelopathic effects impact other plants?

Following the same pattern than any other plant causing alelopathic effects: in several ways, but very rarely as a single factor.

The combined action of at least...

• Natural events to which many Eucalyptus species have adapted their reproductive processes (e.g. fire) while other plants have not, making less desirable habitat for non adapted to some plants while favouring others
• Fast development of root systems compared to some plants, which can give them quicker access to soil moisture and making less desirable habitat for water demanding plants there while favouring others
• Quick canopy development and litter formation, meaning quick shading of understorey and making less desirable habitat for full sun plants there while favouring others
• And the release of natural organic alelo-chemical compounds to the soil, which can inhibit germination of certain plant seeds while favouring others or contribute directly or indirectly to the slower growth of some plants while favouring others

... can cause impacts on any other element of the biota around Eucalyptus. Each of the other plants thrives between thresholds for any given natural factor affecting survival and growth. Probably many other factors could also be included, but those four are enough to illustrate the complex relationships of biota and environment.

For the case of alelo-chemical compounds considered as a single factor in this equation, each different plant taxon will behave differently, some totally tolerating the available amount of alelo-chemicals perfectly, some being affected to a certain degree, and some being non tolerant. It is a dynamic process, and it activates further adaptative processes in all the other plants. Those unaffected will keep growing and reproducing, those non critically affected will evolve towards tolerance given enough genetic variability so some will keep on growing and reproducing, and those non tolerant will be replaced in their ecologic niche by other organisms that will keep growing and reproducing. Evolution under our noses.

A dynamic ecosystem in continuous adaptation. But not anihilation, sterilisation or desertification. Again, pay attention when you any of these or similar terms together in the same sentence, statement or argument in a discussion, as it normally will give you hints on the speaker.

Question 5: Can we safely grow other plants under Eucalyptus in our gardens?

Yes, but results will largely depend on... what your garden is like, what your Eucalyptus are like, what plants you are planting under them and how you manage this small ecosystem. Each plant will have a maximum and minimum treshold for each main restriction to survival and growth, be it water availability and use, tolerance to shade, abundance of nutrients or tolerance to any of the organic compounds present in soil and being released by the Eucalyptus and any other plant nearby. Or any other factor having influence in the final outcome.

Each of your gardens will become a real laboratory and you will have the opportunity to observe what is going on and realize that you cannot blame alelopathy for your other plants dying if you have not watered them during that severe summer drought.

Question 6: What about cultivated forests based on Eucalyptus as main timber species?

This question alone could yield a very long argumentation. It is more suitable as a separate ellaboration, since multiple concepts need to be introduced during its discussion, many of them related to environmental impact assessment, landscape scale considerations, management regimes, and the dynamics in space and time of this more complex than a garden but yet simplified ecosystem any cultivated forest is, irrespectively of the tree species in consideration and its character of native or not to a particular ecosystem.

But, to not let you go with empty pockets, enough mentioning quickly that, the same way you can grow garden plants in the understorey of an eucalypt, many possibilities arise for a wider scale policulture (simultaneous cultivation on the same soil) involving Eucalyptus as tree cover. There are countless examples of these agroforestry systems in all five continents, from relatively simple ones involving pasture or natural grazelands plus Eucalyptus trees (silvopasture) to relatively complex serial crops (multicrop) as sugarcane plus Eucalyptus; maize plus Eucalyptus; pineapple plus Eucalyptus; coffee plus Eucalyptus; Leucaena plus Eucalyptus; cotton plus Eucalyptus; rice, beans and Eucalyptus... as many combinations as adventurous agronomists.

As you can imagine, if the myth of Eucalyptus sterilising soils or making it unusable for every other plant sustained itself, none of these would be possible. But they are. Yet once again, pay attention when you see any of these or similar terms together in the same sentence, statement or argument in a discussion, as it normally will give you hints on the speaker.

Question 7: Why is the myth of Eucalyptus poisoning soils so popular then?

Ahh... now that is a good question, isn't it? It has also many answers, but let's keep it simple.

Because the average urbanite Western citizen is deeply ignorant on agriculture, forestry, the dynamics of ecosystems or long term evolution of landscape parameters by human action.

Because the average gardener, farmer, landowner or investor in trees is too busy making a project work to find time for independent assessment of such questions.

And because there are individuals with either high levels of ignorance, narrow vision or enough knowledge but despicable moral behaviour who keep promoting myth over science and propagating fallacies to discredit one of the most versatile, efficient, productive and diverse plant groups in the world. Genus Eucalyptus.

To all these but especially the last kind, EUCALYPTOLOGICS cordially extends an invitation to join foresters, agronomists and farmers of the world for manual understorey control on those plants that do not grow under Eucalyptus, to grab a tool and labour the understorey crops of Eucalyptus based agroforestry systems that cannot grow on sterilised soils and to enjoy the wildlife that cannot live under the protection of these trees. You can bet that a huge percent of them won't abandon their comfortable chairs for the challenge and will keep behaving like ostriches.

GIT's Eucalyptology Topics

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via RSS

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via e-mail

© 2007-2008 Gustavo Iglesias Trabado. Please contact us if you want to use all or part of this text and photography elsewhere. We like to share, but we do not like rudeness.

External auditory to NORFOR sustainable forestry

Independent External Auditory Test to NORFOR’s Sustainable Forestry Management in Galicia (Mini-Audit)

I) Introduction

Concerned by recent public statements by different environmentalist organizations in Galicia [1], [2], [3], EUCALYPTOLOGICS invited itself as an independent, external and neutral observer to the Fourth Forestry Field Day with Stakeholders, a regular event and meeting point funded by the PEFC & FSC certified forestry management firm Norte Forestal SA to provide a mechanism of interaction with interested parties as a piece of its improving management processes for social & environmental sustainability.


II) Objectives

The main objective of our visit was keeping track of any visible evidence of clear contradiction between management practices and criteria & indicators for sustainable forest management required for any of the certification schemes. Observations were made during the visit on key factors affecting sustainable forestry management from environmental, social and economic standpoints.

In addition, a secondary objective was testing to the extent of what was possible the following seven hypotheses:

• Hypothesis 1: “NORFOR’s relationship with Stakeholders is not transparent”
• Hypothesis 2: “NORFOR’s relationship with Stakeholders is not participatory”
• Hypothesis 3: “NORFOR’s Integrated Management System does not follow Sustainable Forestry methodologies”
• Hypothesis 4: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices create generalised irreversible negative environmental impacts”
• Hypothesis 5: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices involve indiscriminate use of herbicides as glyphosate”
• Hypothesis 6: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices show a complete lack of promotion of the use of native species in their plantations”
• Hypothesis 7: “Galician based Environmental NGO public criticism of NORFOR’s forestry management practices is based on technical and/or scientific criteria”

A summary of relevant facts arising while visiting and observations taking place during the field day follows, with special emphasis on key observations related to the social & environmental sustainability of NORFOR’s forestry management practices. A full report is on preparation and can be made available to PEFC-Spain and FSC-Spain through us upon request.

Fig 1: NORFOR staff welcoming participating stakeholders and introducing the field visit programme

III) Participating Stakeholders

• Representatives of societies of Galician cultivated forest owners & silviculturalists
• Individual Galician cultivated forest owners & silviculturalists leasing land use to NORFOR
• Independent individual Galician cultivated forest owners & silviculturalists not leasing land use to NORFOR
• Independent Galician timber supply chain representatives
• International forestry scientists
• Sectorial Galician forestry industry representatives
• Galician FSC Support Group representatives
• Representatives of Galician Universities
• Independent social agents related to forestry
• NORFOR forestry technical management staff
• NORFOR higher management staff
• NORFOR forestry workers

IV) Non Participating Stakeholders

At least three major Galician based environmental NGO recently withdrawing their public support to FSC sustainable forestry certification [1], [2], [3] and voluntarily withdrawing from participatory processes [4].

Fig. 2: Participating stakeholders observing soil sampling infrastructures

V) Technical Visit Documentation

1. A comprehensive field programme for the visit was supplied
2. Location data and relevant summarised data on forestry management were provided for each visited cultivated forest
3. Suitable cartography with relevant spatial data on forest management were provided for each visited cultivated forest
4. Extra documentation was provided to complement in situ descriptions, including:

• Description of NORFOR's Integrated Management System
• Description of NORFOR's policy for Riparian Habitat Management
• Description of NORFOR's methodology for Visual Impact Assessment & Minimisation at landscape level
• Description of NORFOR's methodology for Stakeholder Participation Assessment
• Summary of existant NORFOR's Forestry Management Methodologies for five types of tree species present in their managed landbase: Quercus robur (oak, carballo), Castanea sativa (chestnut, castiñeiro), Pinus pinaster (maritime pine, piñeiro do país), Eucalyptus nitens (shining gum, eucalipto das xeadas) & Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum, eucalipto do país)
• Summary of performance results for NORFOR's genetically improved plantations
• Summary of NORFOR's Management Strategies for Forestlands with High Value for Conservation within their landbase
• Summary of ENCE Group Management Policy
• Public Summary of NORFOR's Technical Management Plan
• Public Summary of NORFOR's General Management Plan
• Public Summary of ENCE Group Strategic Plan 2007-2011

VI) Key Observations on the environmental sustainability of NORFOR’s forestry practices

1. Data were presented to participating stakeholders on general forestry management regimes applied by NORFOR to the main tree species present in their owned and leased landbase. These comprise 9 different silvicultural regimes applying to both native (Quercus robur) and naturalised species (Castanea sativa, castiñeiro; Pinus pinaster, piñeiro do país; Eucalyptus nitens, eucalipto das xeadas; Eucalyptus globulus, eucalipto do país).
2. Only a 3.5% of total landbase under NORFOR’s management is affected by any of the existent habitat protection figures. Just a 2% of total landbase under NORFOR’s management and at once affected by protection figures is effectively afforested with Eucalyptus, and in that particular case, planting took place before these protection figures were implemented. For these Forestland with High Value for Conservation areas NORFOR has developed special management prescriptions involving low impact silviculture, gradual replacement of industrial timber crops with native species once production cycle is over, creation of buffer zones outside of the affected areas and feasibility studies to implement native habitat corridors. An example of a management unit partially categorised under existent habitat protection figures was visited.
3. Soil properties are monitored for the major soil types where NORFOR's cultivated forests are established. Different soil monitoring sites were inspected during the visit. This process allows regular short and long term tracking of key soil physical and chemical properties by a relevant external party & adapting management prescriptions to current and future soil status, hence securing sustainable long term availability of nutrients and minimising risks of nutrient depletion.
4. Buffer zones of native riparian vegetation are nowadays reasonably preserved near water courses along the boundaries of NORFOR's management units visited, and this trend was stated as increasingly favoured as management principle for the whole landbase.
5. New buffer zones of native riparian vegetation are promoted within NORFOR's own or leased properties visited to protect natural drainage lines and minimise erosion risks. This trend was stated as increasingly favoured as management principle for the whole landbase.
6. Operations for the removal of naturalised Eucalyptus specimens growing in buffer zones along the boundaries of and within NORFOR’s management units were observed during the visit. It was stated that depending on quality of buffer corridors, specific activities of riparian native tree plantation are also undertaken.
7. Mechanical clearing of cultivated forest understorey was the only type of weed control operation observed during the visit and having impact on sizeable areas. It is estimated there are 19% chances to randomly observe a weed control operation among all interventions performed in a given hectare of NORFOR’s management units along its life cycle. Among the latter, 75 to 87% of total understorey control operations are not based on the use of phyto-chemicals , with some variation depending on site conditions and stand evolution after clearing.
8. Spatial impact of the use of herbicides is estimated at a 3 to 5% of total landbase acreage under NORFOR’s management per year. Furthermore, the impacted area is not concentrated over the same water catchment, but spread within as many as existent management units in which this practice is implemented, meaning a dispersal of spatial impact.
9. Temporal impact of the use of herbicides is estimated at a 3 to 6% of cultivation cycle life span for a given hectare under NORFOR’s management, meaning a dispersal of temporal impact.
10. Sound scientific methodologies are being applied to the development of a Protocol to Minimise Visual Impact of NORFOR’s forestry management practices. A review of these methodologies and their potential positive impact on management practices was presented to participating stakeholders. This protocol will be the first step for the operational implementation of as less impacting visual footprint as possible at a landscape level.

Fig. 3: Stakeholders observing one of NORFOR's Permanent Inventory plots in a stand subject to standard silviculture. Note the existance of understorey plants.

VII) Key Observations on the social sustainability of NORFOR’s forestry practices

1. A summary of NORFOR’s Stakeholder Participation Assessment was presented to participating stakeholders, describing behaviour of different groups of stakeholders since 2004. Over 300 different interested parties have participated in this process since its inception. Environmental NGO’s account to a 3% of total participation for the period 2004-2006. Participation rate by Environmental NGO has fallen to 0% since 2006.
2. Suitable documentation was provided by NORFOR’s staff to participating stakeholders in order to receive feedback and improve this system. This established feedback mechanism gives the opportunity to participating stakeholders to provide their individual or collective views on how to improve the sustainability of NORFOR’s forestry management. Highest rates of successful feedback since 2004 are associated to stakeholder categories University/Research and Clients. Environmental NGO feedback for suggestions or alternatives to improve the sustainability of NORFOR’s forestry management account a 0% over total received since 2004.
3. EUCALYPTOLOGICS witnessed more than 200 questions (general, specific, technical and related to the three main angles of sustainability) being presented to NORFOR’s staff by different stakeholders during the field day. Lack of transparency by NORFOR’s technical and non technical staff was not observed at the time of answering these questions. In addition, exchange of information between stakeholders different to NORFOR was also noticeable and evaluated as positive.

Fig 4: Stakeholders comparing sustainably managed productive to poorly managed forestlands

VIII) Conclusions

A) Principal Objective

No clear evidence of contradiction between NORFOR’s management practices and criteria & indicators for sustainable forest management required for any of the FSC or PEFC certification schemes was observed during the Fourth Forestry Field Day with Stakeholders.

B) Secondary Objective

Direct, neutral, impartial and objective observation conducted during the Fourth Forestry Field Day with Stakeholders allowed the following test results for the initial working hypothesis:

• Hypothesis 1: “NORFOR’s relationship with Stakeholders is not transparent”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 2: “NORFOR’s relationship with Stakeholders is not participatory”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 3: “NORFOR’s Integrated Management System does not follow Sustainable Forestry methodologies”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 4: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices create generalised irreversible negative environmental impacts”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 5: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices involve indiscriminate use of herbicides as glyphosate”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 6: “NORFOR’s forestry management practices show a complete lack of promotion of the use of native species in their plantations”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate
  
• Hypothesis 7: “Galician based Environmental NGO public criticism of NORFOR’s forestry management practices is based on technical and/or scientific criteria”. Evaluation: FALSE. Recommendation: Reformulate

IX) Recommendations

We recommend FSC-Spain and PEFC-Spain to consider the initiation of a process to classify Environmental NGO stakeholders as qualified or non qualified according to their ability to provide or not to provide elements for constructive and neutral debate and according to their degree of implication in established feedback mechanisms.

We recommend Norte Forestal SA to keep developing their internal protocols to minimise negative social and environmental impacts of forestry management in their owned and leased landbase.

We recommend the major Galician Environmentalist NGO voluntarily withdrawing their support to FSC [1], [2], [3] and voluntarily withdrawing from participatory processes [4] to refine and moderate their public communication policies and to avoid the spread of false or inaccurate information elaborated without a technical/scientific basis in order to achieve the status of qualified stakeholder in future.

We recommend to all the interested parties & stakeholders to keep a close monitoring of the public information releases by Galician/Spanish Environmental NGOs or individuals associated to these during a minimum period of 9 months from June 5^th 2008, World Environment Day, in order to assess the suitability of implementing a future process to determine if Galician/Spanish Environmental NGO’s can reach or not the status of qualified stakeholders on NORFOR’s sustainable forestry management practices and certification.

X) References

[1] = FSC-Watch (20 May 2008) - ADEGA withdraws its support to FSC due to bad practices of NORFOR. www.fsc-watch.org

[2] = Federación Ecologista Galega (24 Jul 2006) - A “APDR” solicita ao movemento ecoloxista do estado español a retirada do apoio ao “FSC”. – www.federacionecoloxista.org

[3] = Verdegaia (11 Apr 2008) - Verdegaia e Ecologistas en Acción piden que se cancele dunha vez a certificación FSC de NORFOR-ENCE. www.verdegaia.org

[4] = Verdegaia (22 Jun 2007) - Plante das organizacións ecoloxistas a NORFOR (ENCE). www.verdegaia.org

Also in EUCALYPTOLOGICS

ASPAPEL - Papermaking Sustainability Receipt 2008

EUCALYPTOLOGICS WISHES YOU A HAPPY WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY 2008

THE UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY 2008
I'm reducing my carbon footprint by planting efficient carbon sinks! And you?

We are firmly convinced a good amount of myth propagators are just missinformed individuals with a narrow view of forestry in general and the interconnections of forestry, environment, industry and ecology in particular.

EUCALYPTOLOGICS must contribute to a proper dissemination of sound information and to the education of general audience on these important topics no matter if at local, regional, national or global scale. And renewable, recyclable and sustainable primary resources as Eucalyptus timber is can achieve the category of strategic from many standpoints. Our overpopulated greenish Gaia and its friends keep needing of a wise use of their finite resources to support themselves in the long term or they will perish.

GIT's Eucalyptology Topics

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via RSS

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via e-mail

QUOTE OF THE DAY: NIMB is an obsolete policy: “Nimbus do not always go to limbus. There is also gehenna” St. Just.

PinusLetter nº 5 - by Ester Foelkel

PinusLetter - The Pinus Newsletter - nº 5 - May 2008

by Ester Foelkel

Summary of Contents

• Editorial
• Os Pinus no Brasil: Pinus oocarpa / Pinus in Brazil: Pinus oocarpa
• Referencias Técnicas da Literatura Virtual. Grandes autores: Vitor Alfonso Hoeflich / Technical References in Online Literature. Great authors: Vitor Alfonso Hoeflich
• Cursos e Eventos / Courses & Events
• Pinus-Links
• Mini-artigo Técnico por Ester Foelkel: A Madeira dos Pinus e sua Susceptibilidade ao Ataque por Cupins-de-Madeira-Seca e por Cupins Subterrâneos / Technical Mini-Article by Ester Foelkel: Pinus timber and its susceptibility to drywood & subterranean termites
  

Previous Issues

PinusLetter - The Pinus Newsletter - nº 4 - April 2008 by Ester Foelkel
PinusLetter - The Pinus Newsletter - nº 3 - March 2008 by Ester Foelkel

PinusLetter - The Pinus Newsletter - nº 2 - February 2008 by Ester Foelkel
PinusLetter - The Pinus Newsletter - nº 1 - January 2008 by Ester Foelkel

PinusLetter is a new creation of Celsius Degree, a vision for the development of cultivated forests and their products based on the concepts of technology, eco-efficiency, economy and social and environmental sustainability. The main stars of this newsletter will be tree species within genus Pinus. This free online publication will be first launched in Portuguese only but will include references to articles, websites and Pinus-Links at a global level. Hence, you will be redirected to visit sites in English, Spanish, French, in addition to Portuguese.

Have you read the EUCALYPTUS ONLINE BOOK AND NEWSLETTER?

Coordenação e Redação Técnica - Ester Foelkel & Celso Foelkel
Editoração - Alessandra Foelkel
GRAU CELSIUS: Tel.(51) 3338-4809
Copyrights © 2005-2008

Snow Gums... blooming

Snow Gums: cold hardy Eucalyptus from Alpine Australia
Additional notes on taxonomy and cultivation in cold temperate climates

Gustavo Iglesias Trabado
GIT Forestry Consulting - Consultoría y Servicios de Ingeniería Agroforestal - www.git-forestry.com - EUCALYPTOLOGICS

Eucalyptus pauciflora have started blooming in Galicia this year. A bit of delayed this time, as we have observed them blooming since December in previous years, they remain eye catching in any season none the less.

Fig 1: Adult leaves and blooms of a Snow Gum (E. pauciflora ssp. pauciflora) flowering in the Tablelands of Galicia (NW Spain). (Click image to enlarge)

Fig 2: Adult leaves and swollen flower buds in a soon blooming Snow Gum (E. pauciflora ssp. pauciflora) in the Tablelands of Galicia (NW Spain). (Click image to enlarge)

Highly variable for almost every visual parameter, the E. pauciflora complex spreads over different montane and subalpine habitats in South Eastern Australia and Tasmania, and is formed by 6 subspecies and 3 associated taxa, some of them old introductions overseas since the 1850's and other quite new in cultivation due to recent discovery.

Fig. 3: Eucalyptus gregsoniana (ex E. pauciflora var. nana) blooming at Dr. John G. Purse eucalypt collection (Primabio, Kent, United Kingdom). (Click image to enlarge)

Besides these 9 taxa, as our good friend and impenitent Eucalyptus silviculturalist Des Stackpole reminds us, there is yet a 10th Snow Gum, an endemism from Tasmania.

Fig. 4: Juvenile leaves of Eucalyptus coccifera (Tasmanian Snow Gum) in a Galician garden. (Click image to enlarge)

As Dean Nicolle well says, the Alpine Peppermint or Tasmanian Snow Gum (E. coccifera) thrives in moderate and high altitudes of the island, commonly forming the tree-line in areas subject to snow fall at any time of the year. A bit distant from the E. pauciflora complex taxonomically (for instance, leaf venation is not parallel), it is however a species bearing reasonable cold hardiness, able to tolerate snow, and cultivated from early times in Europe, especially in the UK. Hence it can also be reasonably known as Snow Gum.

Also in EUCALYPTOLOGICS...

Eucalyptus pauciflora & its cold hardy friends

Winter views of cold hardy Eucalyptus plantations in Northwestern Spain

Reproductive cycle and seed maturation process in a Snow Gum Eucalyptus tree.

Eucalyptus seedling production at nursery

Contact us / Subscribe to Eucalyptologics

Contact GIT Forestry Consulting - Eucalyptologics

GIT's Eucalyptology Topics

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via RSS

Subscribe to receive EUCALYPTOLOGICS via e-mail

© 2007-2008 Gustavo Iglesias Trabado. Please contact us if you want to use all or part of this text and photography elsewhere. We like to share, but we do not like rudeness.