Talk:Eucalyptus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Eucalyptus is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Eucalyptus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Eucalyptus as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.


Contents

[edit] Exploding Trees

I can attest to witnessing many eucalyptus trees exploding during intense bushfires. I’ve been told it relates to the flash point of the oil similar to petrol in a can, that why only in very intense fires they explode (due to evaporation and heat) but normally they just burn like a normal tree. I have seen an explosion cover almost 50 metres from a large tree, it’s very impressive. It mentions citation needed for this phenomenon, however wiki already cites sources under the exploding tree article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_tree

I have heard the trees can explode over 50 metres and breach fire breaks which are a major problem.

I also feel fire is understated in this article. Eucalyptus trees (mostly) require fire to germinate; the seeds are hard like a branch any only open during a fire. It’s a unique symbiotic relationship with fire that is fascinating, especially for such a ubiquitous tree in a large country / continent. It is an important consideration when fighting the common and very dangerous forest fires Australia experiences yearly. Watching an entire forest grow back from charcoal within a year or two when driving the pacific highway to Sydney is one of the great sights in nature IMO.

It should also be noted that the exploding trees are beloved to cause many deaths of koalas and other forest fauna. Who are unable to escape, and in areas where fires aren’t a problem koalas have faced massive over population problems (e.g Kangaroo Island).

As a side not, its always funny how koalas are demonstrated to be cuddly and cute but in reality you never want to touch a wild Koala, they are extremely fast over the ground, a surprise compared to their slow nature in trees, and also extremely vicious, I guess this is where the bear part of the name comes in :) Even though they aren’t actually related to bears.

Few if any euclaypts require fire to germinate. The vast majority will germinate any time soil moisture conditions are approriate. Some of the wet sclerophyll species such as regnans require a fire sterilised ash bed for succesful seedling establishment, but that's not the same as requiring fire to germinate. Many Acicias are dependent on fire scarification and volatile fire produced chemicals for germination cues, but that is not the case for the vast majoity of eucs.203.164.198.193

[edit] Links to mountain ash

The previous version of this article linked to two empty pages - Mountain Ash and Eucalyptus regnans - the common and the botanical name for the same species. I've added an entry to desribe the Australian Mountain Ash under E. regnans and adjusted the links to fit. However there are at least two other trees called "Mountain Ash" - the American Sorbus americana and the European Sorbus aucuparia. I guess the obvious solution is to have a page "Mountain Ash" which is more-or-less empty and simply links to the three different species, but is there a more elegant solution? Tannin

People generally know trees by their common name, not the botanical one, so that's what they'll look for. Aren't plant articles supposed to go under the commonest English name, the same as animals? If I wanted to find an article on the Australian tree Mountain Ash that's what I'd be looking for because I'm an Australian and even I don't know the proper botanical name! So I'd make articles on Mountain Ash (Australia) Mountain Ash (America) and Mountain Ash (Europe)... KJ

Thankyou. I see that Maveric149 has already moved it while I was still dithering! I lack the knowledge to write about the other Mountain Ash trees. Tannin


[edit] tallest tree

I'd like to note here that the tallest tree ever recorded was an Australian Mountain Ash tree, and not the coast redwood as the article implies (I'm not sure who wrote it). This eucalypt was measured at Watts River, Victoria, in 1872, to be 132.6 metres in height. This compares with the tallest standing tree (which is a redwood), the "Mendocino Tree" in California, at 112.014 metres in December 1996.

This claim of a 132.6m tree has never been verified and is considered by many to be very exaggerated; the tallest ever accurately measured tree remains a Coast redwood; the tallest currently known is the "Stratosphere Giant" (112.34m; 1998). MPF 10:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So far as my memory serves me, MPF, that huge tree was measured by a registered surveyer, an apparently sober, honest and practical man of good reputation. I remember reading about him and being impressed by his credentials. I have some details about it here somewhere. Nevertheless, I do not think we can afford to take it as gospel. It is intruging, given that this was not just some yobbo telling a tall story ... er ... no pun intended ... but it seems too far beyond the other known heights to accept readily. It could be true, but we will never know now. The current phrasing in the entry seems suitable to me. We know 90m plus. Anything taller is just speculation. Tannin
Thanks Tannin! - Michael MPF 17:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
At any rate you could note that the E. regnans is the world's largest and tallest flowering plant (Angiosperm). --Szonyi 08:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration of this article

There seems to be a number of pictures accumulating which are just titled "Eucalyptus" The titles are a bit general and lack information as to where the image was taken and the species (or even common name). I am not certain the contribution that some pictures make to actually illustrating the article when they do not have this sort of information. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic. There is also a certain amount of duplication. Are there any views on editing these pictures where there is duplication, or where no infomation as to place or type of tree? --AYArktos 00:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

imo, if there is some reason for there to be a photo gallery on the page, the duplicate pics up top can be moved down there; however, i'm not really sure of the purpose of the photo gallery here. makes sense for something like the sistene chapel, maybe, but a gallery of eucalyptus trees is probably unecessary. --Heah 01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree (although I'm probably biased as most of these are my photos), I can't see any harm in having as many photos as possible (obviously if there are photos which are of really bad quality (eg. being of no higher res than the thumbnail) than they should go) to illustrate an article. Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words, and people should get as much out of Wikipedia as possible. --Fir0002 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Fir0002. I'm not too biased because only one of the pics on the article is mine (the English gunii in my garden). Say a schoolkid is doing a project on Eucalyptus and say he/she wants a pic to illustrate it. Shouldn't we give that person the widest possible choice? Certainly, low quality pics can go - Adrian Pingstone 08:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me - I have nothing against the quantity of pictures. With about 600 species and enormous variation between those species there is plenty of scope for illustration and to my mind a gallery of pictures is probably the only way to illustrate the scope of the plant family. I am concerned where pictures are not properly annotated - a picture is not worth a thousand words if you do not explain what is being illustrated. To my mind the picture of the English gunii is titled meaningfully with both the species name and where it is located. None of the pictures are poor quality in themselves but a photo of sun shining through the branches of an unspecified eucalypt is not worth a thousand words - it does not add to one's understanding much - a picture of the shadow cast would add more to understand how the leaves hang differently and how the shade is less dense under many eucalypts ...--AYArktos 11:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point but disagree. What if the "sun through the leaves" pic perfectly suits someones requirements for a project? In other words why would we Wikipedians prejudge what may or may not be useful to our readers? :-) (I very much agree about detailed picture descriptions). As a matter of interest that gunii was bought by me in 1985 when it was one foot high. This year it was 80 feet high. Sadly, I had it felled a few months ago because of worry over possible root damage to my house - Adrian Pingstone 14:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gaining information about care of

Hi, I am new to this website so I may be asking the wrong people this question, but I thought I would give it a try. I have recently moved into a little apt. just outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Actually the city is only a ten minute drive away. Anyway my landlady has 2 Eucalyptus trees in front of the apt. What I would like to know is how to care for these trees. I am guessing, but I believe they are around 30 feet tall. They have a small trunk about 8 inches in diameter. One of the trees yesterday just dropped a whole lot of leaves(they are an offwhite in color) and they also are dry and brittle. Do the Eucalyptus shed their leaves in the summer? How often do I water these trees? Do I give them a deep watering? This area has sandy soil so that will have to be taken into consideration also. If anyone can answer these questions I would be most grateful. Thanks Karen karenwtsn@yahoo.com

Without information as to what species or type of Eucalypt it is difficult to give any advice. There are about 600 species and the genus is adapted to a wide variety of conditions across the Australian continent. Generally a significant leaf drop at once is a problem. Deep watering would seem unlikely to succeed in a sandy soil. Some eucalypts neeed more water than others. I suggest the appropriate place to pursue your query is with a local gardening club. In the mean time, although Austrlaia is an arid continent it is probably safe to assume that some watering is in order as New Mexico is very dry too. Regards--AYArktos 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm probably a bit late entering this discussion, but I live in the Australian bush, and let me tell you most euaclypts are extremely hardy. They can easily withstand drought and grow in near impossible conditions (extreme slopes, extremely rocky soils). So I would only caution on not pampering the trees, don't give it too much water. --Fir0002 08:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. As others have mentioned, without knowing the species it's impossible to say. But a good starting point would be to water generously but infrequently - i.e., give them a good solid drink when you do water them, but don't water too often. Most eucs in the wild regularly have periods of several months at a time without rain. That's often longer than they like, but you get the idea. Tannin 13:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Contribution from southern England: my eucalyptus gunii reached 80 feet before I had it felled. It was too close to the house and I was worried the roots would crack the structure. This tree endured English rain (frequently in copious quantities) and thrived. It certainly never needed watering! - Adrian Pingstone 19:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I hope the trees will be ok this summer. Having read a little on the process of transpiration I can see that any amount of water you give them that would make a difference might put your town in danger of a water shortage.  :-) Steve Dufour 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Eucalyptus fan from California, USA

[edit] "Eco-Terrorists"

Why take out the part about "eco-terrorists"? The information is in the article "Tree Wars" which is in the list of links. Of course they are not really terrorists since trees do not feel fear.Steve Dufour 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects I'll put it back.Steve Dufour 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
BTW the "eco-terrorists" were unknown individuals who killed several trees on the campus of the University of California in San Diego. Steve Dufour 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I must say that ive seen many references to these trees in America, so many in fact i started to question if they were really native to Australia ( which I know to be a fact :) ).

Due to their extreme heartiness’ (provided regular fires) I question the wisdom of planting them in other countries, especially due to the fact the leaves are poisonous to most (all?) animals outside a few in Australia. A purely cursory guess would be they'd out most if not all trees in the world.. unless a canopy reducing sunlight has a major impact, but since they grow so high that might not have a big effect. Id recommend destroying any you see outside Australia, lest they turn into plague rabbits and cane toads have in Australia. Thats gardening according to someone with the only qualifications being a last name of Gardiner :)

They're very popular ornamental trees, especially in Souther California, which has environments which are very hospitable to eucalyptus trees. However, they do cause problems with their habits of shedding dead branches, as people have been occasionally injured or even killed by them (a professor was nearly killed by one in CSU Dominguez Hills a few years ago). In some places, though, they harm the environment by drawing out water from the local water tables.--Mr Fink 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half sentence removed

I took out this: "... by some and detested by others whose views are blocked by this densely leaved and fast-growing tree." Why? Because the paragraph it was in was about positive benefits of the trees to California. The next paragraph was about the negative things. That's really a better style, IMO. Besides, I thought Eucalypts were famous for not being "densely leaved" and we can not read people's hearts to know that they detest something unless they say so. Cheers. Steve Dufour 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown Importance?

I noticed this tag at the bottom of this page. I would think that this article should have the very highest importance rating, or at the very least the second highest. I don't know what to do about it however. It seems like there is some kind of "Aussie Importance Committee" going through the articles so I don't want to take the tag off if this would remove the article from their attention. Have a gummy day. Steve Dufour 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Very much incomplete

I don't see any reference to the eucalyptus tree/plant planted on the boundary of your property being a Natural Repellent for Mosquito's, ticks, fleas, gnats and flies. Which I've read that many eucalyptus repellent products tested by the USDA have been proven to be way more effective then "DEET" and way less harmful then chemicals... Not to mention that there are many medicinal uses as well. As usual google gives way to much importance to wiki when there are many far more informative resources available on the net. If your going to tell a "story" then the whole story!!!!! Get with it people.........

[edit] Do we need all this info on leaves?

An opinion, take with a grain of salt.

Well written. Thoroughly researched, but it seems too in-depth. This is a common problem that Wikipedia suffers from, the endless addition of tangential information. This is an article on Eucalypts, and doubtless needs information on foliage. However the depth of information on just leaves seems way over the top, particularly the glossary and diagrams. Consider that the article has barely touched on other important pertinent information such as the logging/forestry industry, environmental functions, community types, taxonomy, evolutionary relationships, the grazing industry/land clearing, reproduction, physiology and so forth.

We are now faced with a dilemma. We devote at least as much space to those and many other sub-topics as we have to leaves, in which case the artcile will be massive and I suspect unreadable as are so many Wikipedia articles. Alternatively we don't devote as much space to those topics and end up with an article that has a disproportionate amount of material devoted to leaves.

My suggestion is that the generic leaf information, ie that which is essentially glossary and the diagrams, be joined to the existing Wiki articles on leaves. We can then link to that section from here if required.

To me having that much generic info on leaves is no different to having a dozen paragarphs on transpiration on the grounds that eucs transpire. Useful, tangentially related, but out of place and redundnat given that there are already articles on leaves and tranpiration that we cna link to. IMO all we really need is a brief mention that most eucs exhbit dimorphism, and explanation of the basic alternate-opposite transitiona and a note that there are exceptions. Listing every possible exception and a detailed description of leaf development through the life cycle seems excessive to me. Better to add that information to the leaf article as required and link from here, rather than reproducing the information here.

YMMV Ethel Aardvark 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The entire "leaf characteristics" section is general information about leaves, and should go. There's no need to move it to leaf, because the material is covered amply there. If after that you still think there is too much detail, then you might consider rolling it out into a daughter article - Anatomy of Eucalyptus - but personally I think that would be going a bit too far at this stage. Hesperian 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Z" vs "S"

Isn't it standard policy in English Wikipedia to use American English rather than English English?--Mr Fink 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Hesperian 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to have a read of WP:ENGVAR. Nomadtales 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Short summary: articles should use a consistent form of English, and where there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect use that dialect. In this instance the article was written primarily by Australian contributors, using Australian references, in Australian English. Eucalyptus is almost excusively an Australian genus, providing a strong tie to Australian English.
...and editors shouldn't chage that without good reason.Ethel Aardvark 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Gum Tree

Here is an image of a gum tree that I found in Heathcote National Park. I am not sure what the bulge is but maybe this could be used some where in the article.

What is the prob with this tree
What is the prob with this tree
Thanks Adam. Hopefully someone can identify the disease. Hesperian 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe they call it hemoriods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.71.120 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand

Additional sources

Pawyilee 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] usage for flowers and foliage

Just came across this http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/eucalypts.html link, its covers the usage of the flowers and foliage by the florist industries across europe, us and aust. Gnangarra 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)