Yesterday I was driving through a nearby suburb and come across a street lined with large palm trees and to my astonishment I saw something I couldn't believe, rainbow lorikeets and sulphur crested cockatoos nesting in holes inside the tops of these trees. These birds must be really desperate for nesting sites here in Sydney if they have to resort to nesting in palm trees. Why don't they stick some nesting boxes up those power poles.
My observations also note the rainbows do seem to like the palm trees for some reason. In St Leonards Park in North Sydney They spend quite a bit of time up there along palm lined pathways. I guess the large leaves offer protection from rain and sun. They flower and fruit as well so maybe it also supplies food at times. In that park there are hundred of natural hollows in the natives which are also used by both Sulphur Crested and Rainbows. Some still seem to prefer the palms. The park also has a lot of nesting boxes that seem to be ignored.
It's always seemed to be a rather twisted & perverse way of behaving for authorities to allow the destruction of bushland for housing & other developments & then to replace the destroyed bush with feral plants. A double whammy on the environment if ever there was one.
I am not a fan of palm trees and they are often seen in FNQ on properties that have been totally cleared of natural bushland and replaced with large expanses of lawn. I can think of no reason for FNQ landholders do this except to make it easier for the cane toads to get around. In Port Douglas, the main street is planted with palm trees and they are full of lorikeets that settle there for the night. The birds have plenty of alternatives such as eucalypts and maleleucas, but I guess the palm trees, with their dense foliage towards their centres, offer them the most protection.
The birds are adapting to the new exotic vegetation therefore changing their natural habits and no longer recognizing the native vegetation around them. Also, the vegetation needs to be endemic to that area not just native. In the long term this is very detrimental to them because we might end up with birds that need to be fed artificially in our backyard or in tourist / national parks with man made foods in order to keep them alive, what a terribly depressing situation. that would be.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Not only that, doublebar, but forests, bushland, woodlands & other ecologies depend in part on birds as pollinators, seed carriers & pest controllers. Take the birds out of the bush at the bush's peril.
Yes, so we all need to cut down all those useless exotic plants and turn them in to mulch for our new gardens full of native / endemic plants. The birds will love you for it.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Yes hooray for new gardens full of native/endemic plants. But while there is just SO MUCH empty space available, let's wait until all that space is filled before we rip out the exotics. Any kind of tree is better than no tree at all!
Just replacing sterile, water-guzzling lawns alone would give us a few thousand hectares to plant out around the suburbs. Also verges and many public spaces are way under-planted. I can't understand the reluctance of councils to foliate their suburbs. Leafy suburbs fetch higher real estate values and therefore higher rates for councils. And seedlings are very cheap considering the value they give. Suburbs are the places to plant densely because they are less susceptible to large bushfires, already provisioned as they are with intersecting fire-breaks and fire trails (roads and footpaths) the best fire-fighting equipment (roadside hydrants) and supporting human resources (suburban homeowners themselves).
The big issues with preserving habitat are agriculture and urban development. Targeting exotic plants may make you feel better but if you really want to help you should be lobbying councils over higher density urban living and keeping new developments away from valuable native habitat. There is no doubting the value of indigenous plants, and many farmers are now using them for plantings of corridors, shelter belts and windbreaks. native plants have a big advantage in the rural landscape because they are already evolved for the conditions. On my farm I find Eucalyptus viminalis grows really well, and also Acacia vestita. In many urban areas it is not so easy, the soil has been so much altered and large natives take up too much room. Large scale land clearing is the biggest problem for biodiversity and habitat loss.
I know for a fact that there some exotic trees that councils have planted and are still planting that are HUGE in size and shed their leaves in winter and cause more of a mess in the streets than any gum tree would and are totally useless to our native birds, insects and animals. Useless exotics that come to mind, awful jacarandas and oak trees that produce all those round ball seed pods, yuk.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
I don't see what the problem with planting foreign plants for streetscaping. Yes, it would be better if native plants were planted instead, but an urban environment is inherently disrupted. Any animals or birds found in it will have adapted to be able to cope with exotic plants, and I don't think those which haven't are likely to move back into urban environments quickly.
In the meantime, large, exotic trees are beautiful. Foreign, but that doesn't stop them from making our cities and town into nicer places to live. Furthermore, the extra greenery (in my opinion) encourages people to value nature, and that is far more significant than some poor quality, fragmented habitat.
I think there is merit in all arguments. There can be no doubt that regeneration money is better spent in the country where agriculture has ruined many areas. In talking about urban development, we should avoid lumping together city, inner suburban, outer suburban and bush-fringe properties. I am not a scientist but in my view there are different levels of benefit to be obtained from conservation/regeneration efforts applying to each category. There may be lesser benefit in planting native/endemics in the city/inner suburbs where pockets of native habitat are small, sparse and isolated. That is not to say, I guess, that there is no benefit at all. As Laclan points out, all trees have their own beauty, and while I prefer to see natives/endemics planted wherever practicable, exotics can have their place provided they are not feral. In the suburbs, replacing lawns and expanses of concrete with trees, any trees, is the priority.
...so the only options are large, beautiful exotics or small, crappy natives?
I disagree. I would rather see more gum trees where appropriate and more native shrubs almost everywhere. Many native birds simply can't get any benefit from exotics.
- soakes
soakes
Olinda, Victoria, Australia
Since th 1970's there has been a very active lobby for more native plants. The only real result has been to discourage people from gardening because they are not as rewarding to grow as exotic plants. The "waterwise" and "organic" approaches with emphasis on not watering and not fertilising only make things worse, people find they end up with very drab gardens, even though they feel very virtuous.
There are many options. We shouldn't be too prescriptive about planting eucalypts in small suburban gardens although, to me, a well designed, well planted native garden is anything but drab. Growing lawns and roses might be rewarding to some, but I find them drab. A matter of taste perhaps, or degrees of imagination or environmental awareness.
To all of you who still cling to your selfish and useless gardening practices and are telling us that exotics have a place in our streets, parks and front and back yards, what would you say to all the migrating birds that travel each spring from the northern states to the southern states and only find roses and lawns and other totally useless trees, feed and nest on those because you mean nothing to us and our exotics are worth more to us than you ever will and we won't apologize for disrupting your lives so go away and become extinct. Sorry guys that's not the person I am or want to become, fortunately I have a conscience, do you?
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Soakes- I agree with you; I would rather our cities (acknowledging the gross simplification Night Parrot pointed out) were full of a wide variety of native plants which encouraged native fauna back into urban areas. Unfortunately, it's just a vision, and will not happen for a long time. In the mean time, any trees, even exotics make the city a nicer place and do help the local wildlife (even if to a lesser extent).
GregL- It is a shame how drab many suburban gardens are- especially in the outer suburbs where people are less inclinedto look after them. I took a train up to the Blue Mountains today, and many of the backyards I could see from the tracks were just sad expanses of lawn and concrete with the odd unhappy shrub. I think part of the problem is that gardening has become increasingly expensive (and is thus seen as exclusive), and many people just don't wan't to put the time and effort into it in the modern world where productivity is everything and time=money. Native Plants tend to be more expensive than exotic stuff, and hence the prevalence of exotics in gardens, despite the beauty of many native plants.
Night Parrot- Agreed, an established native garden is a thing of wonder, and I would rather a Grevillea over a rosebush any day.
Doublebar- Thanks for asking, but last time I checked I definitey have a conscience. It's that thing that cries out in horror whenever I see a bird cross a road. I would much rather have a garden composed entirely of native plants, but I'm not going to rip out the existing plants in it to that end. Hence, the azalea, the camelias, conifiers, roses, street tree and other assorted ends can stay. Quite happily alongside the grevilleas, bottlebrush, two gumtrees (although one is native to Qld rather than the Sydney Basin), banksias, wattle, and other native bits and bobs. Birds migrating through the area especially love the eucalypts.
I happen to like them all, even the exotics. And above, the massive amounts of land clearance occuring along the seaboard of Australia is a much greater crime than any I or any of the other 4 million or so inhabitants of Sydney could commit by planting or appreciating a few exotic plants.
Last time I checked, native and exotics cannot coexist in the same garden due to different soil requirements. I know which ones I would choose and be very glad to.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Thanks for your measured response, Lachlan.
There is nothing drab about a native garden, and I really don't think people give up on gardening just because there is a push for native or water-resistant plants.
I agree that exotic plants are better than concrete yards and dead lawns, but if you can't be bothered planting and researching natives, do yourself a favour and at least plant fruit and vegetables - at least then the exotics will be useful!
- soakes
soakes
Olinda, Victoria, Australia
Good to see this lively discussion. I think it is very relevant to BIBY interests.
I suspect there are not many people who plan to start gardening keenly then fail to proceed because of opposing trends or costs. I think they are simply apathetic or have higher priorities. And many have inherited customs and practices from previous generations that are hard to break eg watering the lawn and mowing it with the Victa on the weekend. Its a bit like BIBY itself. People who are not interested in birds, nature, growing natives for habitat, etc would never even come across this site. And they probably don't watch Gardening Australia or Landline, etc. They are prepared to make a token effort to "green" their surrounds, but gardening to them is never so important as to require research, planning and continuous devotion. These people could hardly be expected to discriminate between natives and exotics, nor even recognise differences. I don't know what the answer is; perhaps leading by example is the best way to influence them.
Soakes I'm glad you agree that exotics are better than concrete and dead lawns, but I am talking about ALL lawns, green ones as well. In fact a dead lawn is preferable because it usually means that less water has been wasted on it. Its the lawn "mindset" that I find hard to understand. As if a lawn is de rigeur. Again I think that if many in the Victa brigade could see some good examples of native gardens and learn the benefits for them in terms of cost and work savings compared to lawn maintenance, they may find redemption. I think they are unlikely to be influenced by benefits for bird habitat, or visual enhancement, unless this could be translated into higher property values for them.
A few points about exotic plants.
- they have been selected and bred for many years from a huge selection of plants from all round the world, they are the most attractive and most adaptable to garden situations.
- They are mostly easy to propagate and grow, not requiring special skills or equipment, being easy to propagate they are cheap.
- They provide food for humans as well as native wildlife.
It's much easier to create an attractive garden with exotics. I agree there are some beautiful and easy to grow natives, but not the same range as exotics. I can't prove that people get discouraged when trying to create native gardens, but I have been gardening for a long time and seen plenty of anectodal evidence.
I don't share this hatred of lawns. They are a safe and attractive recreation area, especially for children. They also store carbon if the clipping are left on the lawn.
- Attractive is a matter of opinion
- Natives are remarkably easy to grow
- Roses provide food for humans? Do go on...
Greg, it *is* possible to mix natives and exotics (actually it's very easy). Also, native gardens can be *much* easier to maintain (when established, there is no watering or weeding required). Also, they look better. They are the most attractive and most adaptable to garden situations.
Also they attract native birds.
:-)
- soakes
soakes
Olinda, Victoria, Australia
Doublebar, I think it is less an issue of soil type and more the amount of nutrients in the soil. Many exotics come from Europe, which has more nutrient rich soils due to the (geologically) very recent glaciation. Australia on the other hand has poor soil, which many of our natives are optimised for. Hence why many exotic plants need to be regularly fertilised to thrive. Of course, natives benefit from fertilisation as well, but fertilisers for natives have a different composition.
I do think native gardens can be discouraging, because they require a different methods of upkeep to an exotic garden. It is all too easy to continue with ingrained habits optimised for exotic rather than considering what the native plants actually need. Hence the repuatation Natives have for dying.
If natives struggled to grow that badly, they would be outcompeted in nature- and this obviously isn't the case, as Australia is a megadiverse country. I don't think that there is any lack of range of Australian natives in cultivation, as the range of cultivars seems to be expanding exponentially (especially with Grevilleas), while more and more species are introduced to cultivation. For instance, look at the listings on the Heathcote Wildflower Nursery:
http://www.sydneywildflowernursery.com.au/plants/stock-list.html
I am all for mixing natives and exotics, but some people think we shouldn't plant any exotics. I try to use natives in my garden whenever appropriate, but I don't fancy a garden of only indigenous plants.
Roses do provide food in their hips, most of the rose hips at my place are eaten by native birds, but rose hip jelly or syrup is nice. You can also make rose oil from the flowers.
The only Australian native that I eat regularly is macadamia nuts, but they won't grow in my cool-climate garden.
Yeah birds eat lots of things if they have to as a last resort, out of desperation in order to survive but that doesn't mean it's good for them or that they like it, just like us they too need a variety of foods especially their favorite natural foods only found in native trees and grasses not on exotic trees or in containers full of man made alternatives.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
With the every increasing destruction of Australian natural habitat I would have thought we'd be using every opportunity to restore what we can. Urban environments with their desolate vistas are great places to re-establish some of what used to grow there & to provide habitat for our unique but fast-disappearing wildlife.
As well as returning some of our places to more natural areas we also need to take into account the climate change we're undergoing. Exotics require a lot more maintenance & water than indigenous natives so as a tax payer I'm all in favour of indigenous plants in urban environments where droughts are becoming ever more likely.
Another advantage of natives is that they can provide wildlife corridors to enable wildlife under threat from drought, development or bushfire to recolonise other areas of natural or restored forest & bushland.
As for the aesthetics, I much prefer the subtle colours of the Australian bush. For me a garden is more than just plants. The litter, insects, birds, butterflies, reptiles are all part of it. There are few of these elements in an expensive-to-maintain exotic garden. Brightly coloured exotic gardens are ecological wastelands in my view.
Exotic gardens are also symbols for me of a child-like attachment to the old country, usually in the northern hemisphere & often in the UK. Native gardens symbolise independence & adulthood.
Great post woko, yes there is nothing better than being part of an intact habitat, especially an Australian one. More people should be educated on how to respect what is around them, maybe one day it will happen but in the meantime we just have to do whatever we can to keep what's left and try to repair what has been damaged and neglected, even if it seems impossible, it's never too late to turn things around and make amends. Hint, if you don't know where to begin, start with yourself, you as a consumer are very powerful and your decisions can change things for the better.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Too true, there is nothing like being part of an intact Australian habitat. Unfortunately, the suburbs will never form intact habitat within our lives. There is no point trying to repair degraded areas until we halt the further destruction of habitat and ecosystems, which should be a national priority. Stuff vested economic intrests, Australia ecosystems should come first. No project should occurr unless it has a positive environmental impact.
The problem is, as consumers, our individual voices are limited, which allows for anyone who suggests ideas contrary to the 'norm' to be ignored as "economic fringe dwellers". As the environment has been neatly sidelined in the current (claimed) economic conditions, anyone who promotes it has become an extremist.
Thats the problem with being a consumer; it cuts both ways...
Thats my comment anyway, but I'm not trying to make it political.
Guys I know that what I'm about to say might seem too radical for some to accept but I feel that our birds deserve all the help they can get and no idea should be discounted. I live in Sydney and like so many people we can be so myopic at times that we can't see the forest for the trees and things just get overlooked, like the design of our homes, especially the roofs. If you think about it, our roofs are really just a lifeless rocky desert contributing to habitat change and maybe even to climate change. Since population increases will be unavoidable in the future and most of the population always lives in cities and cities are always built in the best habitats for birds we need to change our architecture as well as our gardening practices. Our houses should have flat roofs and have a garden of native trees growing on them. Don't you agree with me? I know the birds and all their insect and animal friends would love it. If only they could talk.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
Its not so radical doublebar and it makes a LOT of sense. Roofs are wasted space and architects recognise this. There are developing trends to place roof gardens on office buildings and hopefully it will become standard design practice, just as underground parking is now the norm. It is relevant to note here that one of this nation's most famous buildings, Parliament House in Canberra, is covered in lawns. This was a mistake in my books as it reinforces the mindset of establishing lawns in a country where there shouldn't be any. Instead it would have been easy to put in native shrubs, even if they were in tubs that could be revolved as required. I wouldn't think the cost would be higher than maintaining the rooftop lawns. I think it will take a lot longer for the trend in rooftop gardening to extend to suburban homes, only because of cost considerations. Sloped roofs don't collect rainwater. It is expensive to make a flat roof absolutely watertight and keep it that way for a hundred years. There are also increased structural loads that have to be accounted for in the roof design and that's an added cost. But for those who have the money, great!
Australian architechture is definitely in need of changes to better suit our environment and climate. It is still extroadinarily European.
Note about Parliament House: Burley Griffin's original design was some horrific edifice that resembled a pagoda of sorts, which wasn't an acceptable design by the 1970s and 80s. I think the symbolism behind it being in the hill rather than on the hill is meant to represent the care of Australians for our country rather than dominance over it.
Nice sentiment, but pity, as Night Parrot said, about the lawn. It suggests symbolism of an entirely different nature.
Why couldn't they put a nice native garden on the roof instead? Or event use an Australian native grass for it? I'm sure that in such a massive country the gov't could find something suitable.
Infact, when you think about how the entirety of the Parliament house utterly reeks with hidden meanings and symbolism about Australia, the fact that they put an exotic lawn on the roof is really curious, and suggests that it isn't just asthetics.
Doublebar, I don't think saying that Australian flora and fauna need all the help they can get is radical. Simply logical in the light of the huge amount of damage we do daily the environment. Like you, I live in Sydney, and in what is to be the "South West Growth Centre". The fringes of Sydney seem to expand exponentially... Halting habitat loss like this would do wonders for native ecosystems, as in the current climate it seems to be a kind of death by 1000 developments...
Perhaps the best solution would be to surrender the urban centres as forsaken land environmentally, and cram as many people into the given bounds as possible to preserve surrounding habitat that is currently under threat from urban sprawl?
By the way, what are the processes in removing protection from a national park? I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last week that projected huge population increases for Sydney over the next 50 years, and development is allready getting nastily close to many parks and catchment areas. Once they develop the current open space, I can't see where the developers would go otherwise?
Sorry to continue my post, but:
Red= The two planned Growth Areas
Green= The natural fringe of Sydney
Cyan= The border of the heavily urbanised areas of Sydney
The only real room left for Sydney to expand is on the other side of the Hawkesbury River, and it has issues with access to the city transportwise. To the far south-west (eg Wollondilly, parts of Macarthur), lots of the open space is taken up by fairly recent acreages and the like which aren't likely to move quickly. Also, they are becoming increasingly distant from the city centre, like in the north .
Even in the currently rural areas, development is pushing into more natural areas. Large parts of the current South West Growth area were intended to be left open (even if not in their natural state), and yet they are now being alienated for development.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-population-to-exceed-40-million-by-2060-20131126-2y7w0.html
The Bureau of Statistics projects that Sydney will have a population of over 8 million in about 50 years. Surely there would be ways of fitting them in the current basin area, but development will take the path of least resistance. I hope that is not the national parks that suffer from it, but they do seem the path of least resistance. I suspect that as land pressure (and value) increased a catalyst like the Army selling its land around Holsworty could have horrid implications for nature across the Sydney basin.
Lachlan, apropos your post #28, I agree that protecting intact habitat should be the highest priority. This means stopping population growth & further development which encroaches on the natural environment. We are conducting a war on Australia at present & that requires an emergency response whereby it's all hands on deck not to mention to the wheel. If we were under traditional threat from a foreign power no expense would be spared in protecting the country. In my opinion the same applies to our natural environment which is directly connected to the economy and our overall well-being.
The protection of our natural environment, especially it's biodiversity, is critical for the maintenance of our economy. The effects of wrecking the Murray-Darling system is a model for our economic managers to avoid as it is symbolic of what happens when we wreck the environment overall.
Those ideas about native gardens on roofs etc. are interesting. What bothers me about them is that if we have lots of houses with roof gardens the developers will argue that we can have lots of greenery with lots of houses which, of course, means lots more loss of natural habitats.
It's a horrible corner into which we've painted ourselves. At this stage I don't see that we'll get out of it because the anti-environment forces &, therefore, the anti strong economy forces, are well in the ascendancy. However, that shouldn't stop us from trying to slow them down & one way of doing that is to do what we can to promote restoration of natural habitats in urban environments.
Reading some of your great posts guys makes me think that maybe we should start captive breeding to save native birds in rural and urbanized areas. With constant pressures coming from all sides, droughts, bushfires, diseases, habitat destruction, climate change, pesticides, deforestation, salinity, farming, mining, pollution, feral animals and the ever increasing human population, how long will it take to knock them off the planet. The outlook for them is really bleak especially when environmental issues take a back seat to big business everytime. I guess that we can all take the blame for that too since as consumers we all put our needs and wants before everything else without a care in the world.
For Australian birds, natives=life, exotics=death, so do them a favour and go plant some natives and save their lives.
How well do captive bred birds assimilate into wild populations? I had thought they didn't really, but apparently the last batch of captive Orange Bellied Parrots released are doing really well and have even learnt how to migrate.
The problem with releasing captive birds into urban areas where they were once found is that there is a reason they're not found there anymore: the habitat often isn't suitable anymore. Many birds can't cross the large, unvegetated areas in urban areas.
Hence the need for lots of native vegetation to provide corridors & refuges in urban areas, Lachlan.
I'd be concerned that the captive birds, once released, would have insufficient habitat in which to survive. By all means have captive breeding programmes but before they're established lets have lots of ecological restoration to provide sufficient habitat.
Great to hear about the organge-bellied breeding programme, Lachlan, assuming the information is accurate. I believe that a significant factor in their approach to extinction was their being trapped in the Coorong in SA so the habitat is probably there for them. Mind you the establishment of a cat & rat attracting dump in one of their wintering areas near Robe wouldn't have helped the species' survival. Some councils just don't get it.