Last week on Channel 9’s Sunday Program, Reece Turner from The Wilderness Society stated: “We haven’t seen any scientific evidence to show that biodiversity is being impacted negatively by these woody weeds.”
Sunday reporter Ross Coulthart then asked Turner, “Do you accept that there are woody weed areas causing major environmental damage?” Turner’s response to the question was: “No. We don’t accept there are major environmental damages being caused by woody weeds.”
Mr Doug Menzies, in a media release from NSW Regional Community Survival Group, said that The Wilderness Society needs to drop its emotive rhetoric on land clearing in western NSW and urgently review the scientific literature on how infestations of woody weeds degrade the landscape.
The media release continued:
“The Channel 9 footage showing vast tracts of land degraded by woody weeds clearly showed how little understanding Reece Turner has on this issue. Turner needs to get off his bum and make the effort to review the scientific literature that details the negative environmental impacts of woody weeds,” Mr Menzies said.
Below are just some of the published scientific journals and reports that confirm the destructive impact of infestations of woody weeds on the environment:
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Scrub and Timber Regrowth in the Cobar-Byrock district and other areas of the Western Division, NSW. February 1969.
“The density of timber and scrub regrowth on level loamy soils, which would normally run little water, is such that the small open spaces between clumps are completely bare and becoming wind sheeted and water sheeted. This class of country thus becomes a mosaic of bare, wind and water sheeted patches on which nothing can grow, interspersed with small clumps of thick scrub.”Alchin, B.M., Proude, C.K., and Condon, R.W. (1979). Control of Woody Weeds in Western NSW. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Conference.
“Regrowth of woody weeds is a major problem over millions of hectares on the rangelands of western NSW. The regrowth reduces pasture growth, increases management costs and results in soil erosion.”Control of Woody Weeds. Woody Weeds Taskforce. Information Sheet 5. September 1990.
“Woody weeds are native shrubs which have encroached formerly open lands of western NSW. The encroachment has lowered pastoral productivity, reduced botanical and faunal diversity, reduced land values and increased the risk of water and wind erosion. Much of the area has now changed and is dominated by a dense understorey of shrubs. It has been estimated that 20 million hectares of western NSW are either already encroached or highly susceptible to woody weed encroachment.”Booth, C.A., King, G.W., and Sanchez-Bayo, F. (1996). Establishment of woody weeds in western NSW. 1. Seedling emergence and phenology. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 58-79.
“While the semi-arid range lands of Australia have historically been regarded as amongst the nation’s greatest assets, millions of hectares have unfortunately deteriorated considerably due to the spread of unpalatable native shrubs on open grazing lands. As a consequence of the reduced feed available on infested land, livestock and native animals graze more heavily on unaffected areas, which in turn become more susceptible to erosion and to further invasion by shrubs.”Daly, R.L., and Hodgkinson, K.C. (1996). Relationships between grass, shrub and tree cover on four landforms of semi-arid eastern Australia, and prospects for change by burning. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 104-117.
“The range of grass, shrub and tree levels present in the Louth region of western NSW was determined in an area where woody weeds are considered to be rampant, and the prospects for change by burning were evaluated. The survey confirmed the perception of pastoralists, administrators and scientists that shrub cover is unacceptably high for pastoralism throughout much of the region. Additionally, the perennial grass cover was very low and this would increase the instability of forage supply to pastoral herbivores.”CSIRO. Media Release – “No Half Measures to Deal with Woody Weeds.” May 15, 1998.
“Woody weeds have been a problem for more than a century. Since the first two decades of pastoral settlement, there has been a vast area affected by increasing density of the shrubs, largely as a result of declining fire frequency. Some 35 million hectares or 25 per cent of NSW is affected.” Dr Jim Noble, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.Blueprint for a Living Continent. A Way Forward from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Nov 2002).
“Clear distinction needs to be made between the need to stop broadscale clearing of remnant native vegetation and the need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and arid pastoral areas of Australia. This part of Australia has been managed by indigenous Australians for 45,000 years, using fire. Since European settlement these fire management practices have changed which is causing environmental damage in some areas.”
Landholders in western NSW and Queensland may have felt some relief last Sunday with well known journalist Ross Coulthart acknowledging the very real problem of invasive woody weeds. But it appears the Wilderness Society is now going to ignore the event and the issues it raised. There has been no official response from the organisation; no media release attempting to justify their position. I guess this strategy makes it difficult for landholders to get any traction on the issue in the mainstream media? How do you have a debate when one side won’t debate?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Woody weeds are not a cause of the problem, they are a result of the problem.
There will be no long term answer to the issue until that reality is addressed.
To my eyes both sides are being ’emotive’ and illogical.
A real goal that is common to both parties is achievable, but not while ever the attitudes are confrontational.
How do we get a debate? Just dump a hectare’s worth of woody weeds on the Harbour Bridge and Western Distributors at peak hour. Do the same on the Gateway Bridge and South East Freeway in Brisbane.
And then just put up a sign saying, “this crap has been cluttering our life and businesses for decades, how do you like it cluttering yours”?
And then explain that just because some ideological moron can spot an activity from the air or from a satellite photo doesn’t mean it is bad for the environment.
The public need to take more than 15 seconds to think about the issue. Lets give them 2 hours in the traffic to have some real good contemplation about the merits of stuffing people around.
Who else is up for it?
With respect, Graham, bollocks. That only works when there is equal goodwill between the parties. There is no such thing here.
Nelson Mandella had the right message when faced by a complete absence of goodwill when he said, “show me what what you can achieve with your other cheek, and I’ll show you what I can achieve with half a brick”.
This may not go down all that well with the visitors to your Dude Ranch but it is the reality on the ground.
To be honest, I think it would be in the wilderness societies best interest to get a new campaign leader on this issue. Mr Turner does display a high level of stubborn ignorance when it comes to the ecological disaster, that is “extensive woodland thickening”. He made some similar, stupid comments in retaliation to the reality expresed by some pastoralists that drought had caused some woodland thinning; with Mr Turner claiming that “Native trees are adapted to drought but not to bulldozers”. *Rolls eyes*.
The people that matter, i.e. the land managers and the people from the cities that are involved in natural resource management issues are all aware of the problem of woody weeds in these rangelands. The conflict arises because of the methods used by some land managers to cope with the economic reality of woodland thickening on their pastoral properties (ie. broadscale indiscriminate clearing and cultivation).
Ian Mott claims that two bulldozers and chains is the only economical method for thinning the thickened woodland that currently exists. So it sounds like the issue is in the economics, not a failure by the two sides to recognise the same common goal.
Graham Finlayson continues to point out the importance of a holistic approach that will result in permanent restoration of the grassy landscapes, rather than short term rotations of scrub and un-balanced pastures.
I continue to point out the damage done by broadscale mechanical disturbance to natural ecosystems and it’s counter-productive influence of encouraging mass germination of more of the same woody problems.
We need a minimal impact, economical method of thinning our thickened rangeland woodlands, followed with improved grazing management.
I feel land managers in general have been seriously let down by a lack of experimentation and development of new innovative methods for dealing with this problem.
Here are a couple of suggestions, that no doubt Ian Mott will love to sneer at.
1. Lets try running some Giraffes and various types of African Antelopes to see if they can help to balance the thickening woodlands.
2. What about a solar-powered, robotic scrub lopper. Most of these woody plants have single trunks, so it should be possible to develop a slow moving mechanical robotic device that could randomly identify thin trunks, lop them and paint the stump with poison, or just lop it, or just inject poison. Of course you would need to design it to recognise fence posts and cows legs, but that should be easy enough.
The wool industry spent years and millions of dollars on trying to develop a robot for shearing and despite the incredible complex nature of shearing a sheep, they almost managed! A woodland thinning robot would be pure simplicity in comparison
3. Encourage recreational scrub lopping. Have scrub lopping camps, to allow activity-deprived individuals the opportunity to improve their health and the health of the grassy woodlands.
That’s all for now.
regards,
Michael
Hey, I keep quite a few Nelson Mandella quotes and I’ve never seen that one…
Ian, I’ll still maintain that they are not the number one problem. After reading through the transcript of the Sunday program I was astounded, if not surprised, that grazing and its effects were not mentioned at all.
And yet lack of perennial grasses through set stocking has directly created the environment for the woody weeds to flourish, rather then the woody weeds “stopping” the grass from growing.
A subtle difference that the less subtle such as yourself can’t seemingly come to grips with. Addressing one without the other is a recipe for going nowhere in the long term.
A friend from Wanaaring (far west) told me how as a boy he used to get lifted out the house window some mornings to clear the front door of built up sand.He said at least now with the “bush” he does not see it like that as the woody weed is holding the country together. They still want to see more grass but it would be folly to be rid of one without promoting the other to come back.
I have struck a few visitors to my “dude ranch” that have had some pretty strange and naieve views on the world, but rather then bludgeon them with your style I have preferred to reason around “why” I think like I do, and what we are trying to achieve.
I’m sure I have been able to influence quite a few to think more positively, just as they have been able to give me a broader perspective.
And, I also think they just may have more bricks then us big fella!!
Ian – yes any reasonable ecologist/greenie/grazier knows it’s a mess. No contest. Feel free to get it sorted. No ideology required.
Pls try to look after it better next time and not stuff it.
And no knicking off east to bowl over some Wilga or Myalls while you’ve got the D9 warmed up.
Oh yea – pls stop yelling and abusing the shit out of us (entertaining though it is and not so bad given we’re all deviant urbanites and into S&M anyway). I’m feeling very emotional and fragile today and you might push me over the edge 🙂
I wonder if you could chip and brew the stuff into methanol? Then you could Hezbollah us with some bush rockets. Jihad our jackies.
P.S. So does this mean you want to burn the Pilliga back into scattered woodland/ grassland – or is some thickening OK 🙂
Luke,
1. If the pre-clearing baseline is really 1788, then of course the Pilliga has to go. And if it doesn’t, then we’d better have a very close look at what is the definition of a remnant.
2. There is that quote “In Australian rangelands, Clementsian succession is botanical astrology”. It is much more the realm of state and transition, and even “rangeland ecology at disequilibrium”.
3. I now suspect that the next state is very much dictated by not only what survives any extended drought, but also by what manages to establish on the small falls of rain that do occur during droughts. Both have a head start from lack of competition.
4. Repetition, but there is a perception that things happen very slowly in the rangelands. More so that nothing much happens, then things can happen very quickly, and then nothing much happens.
Graham, I fully understand your approach to visitors at the personal level, and agree with it. But I also spent 15 years in Sydney and have met and worked with the best of it’s worst and the worst of it’s best. In my student and feral traveller days I drove taxi on nightshift out of Surry Hills and I left there as head of merchant banking recruiting for a major recruiting firm. And this gives me insights that many farmers do not have.
The first point is that metrocentric minds have two types of people, the vast majority that they ignore and a small minority that is divided between those they like and want to deal with and those they dislike but must deal with.
Their response to the intensity of both the good and bad in their surroundings is to maximise the number of those they can ignore and minimise the number of those they dislike but must deal with.
Farmers are part of those they ignore. And metrocentrics have discovered that if they let the Greens, who they dislike but must deal with, have free rein in their dealings with farmers then they will minimise the instances when those greens want to deal with themselves.
And they will continue with this strategy, like stepping over a dying man on the footpath, until they have no choice but to deal with whatever situation confronts them.
So any strategy that does not focus on Farmers joining the ranks of those they MUST deal with will fail. The set of people they actually like and want to deal with is very small and entry opportunities are limited. And attempts to join this group face strong competition. So we need to make it more uncomfortable for them to ignore us than to deal with us. We need to burn into their minds the link between their indulgence of the greens, our anger, and their subsequent discomfort.
And we shouldn’t worry about whether they ‘approve’ or not. Catharsis is not achieved by white noise. And the worlds “best practice” farming lobby, the French, have shown that only from awareness and understanding can respect grow.
So when they pelt a Minister’s car with tomatoes and bring the Paris ring road to a dead stop, they are simply shifting their status in the metrocentric consciousness. And they probably have their strongest and most enduring bonds between the two communities because of it.
It is no good just sharing the written facts and images with them because they are bombarded with facts and images. We need to share the intensity of our frustration and anger to raise the emotional cost of indifference.
In southwestern Australia native woody weeds are rampant. The tuart forest is dying due to invasion by peppermint (Agonis flexuosa). The jarrah forest is being invaded by bull banksia (B. grandis) and parrot bush (Dryandra sessilis). Rock sheoak (Allocasuarina huegeliana) has escaped from its former rocky refuges, and is now ‘all over the place’ sheoak, smothering all with its needle litter. The cause of this nonsense is lack of regular, mild controlled burning. Yet local ‘environmentalists’ seem blind to the matter. They think native weed thickets are ‘pristine wilderness’ and ‘rich biodiversity’. Unhappily, they seem to have the ear of the current government.
Ian,
I have some sympathy with your views and can understand where you are coming from. Although comparisons between the political strength of the French or U.S farmers and us is drawing a long bow as they have strenghth in numbers. I think we have to be smarter than that for us to succeed and we have to do that by providing a viable alternative.
We will not ‘win’ the battle until we can prove conclusively that we can and are regenerative farmers, and by doing so leave the extremists of both camps with out any ammunition.
True conflict resolution should leave both sides pleased (without compromise) and involves the application of a third alternative, previously not considered by either party.
Maybe I’m an optimist…
I know that I’ve had more success convincing people to my way of thinking that didn’t have a clue about such issues as opposed to those that don’t realise that they really don’t have a clue…
Michael, I would never sneer at a positive suggestion. I applaud your crossing over from the dark side.
Luke, I agree that mechanical disturbance plays a big part in creating new regen. But unless we can import 40,000 unemployed East Timorese and pay them $20 a day more than they would get back home for manual thinning, we are pretty well stuck with mechanical options.
If we could find a market for Brigalow woodchips then this ‘problem’ would become an ‘asset’ overnight. But Aila stomped her foot and that option went the same way as the nutritional value for Koalas of all those former state forests. That is, up a very dry creek.
We also need to understand that any grazing at all will produce an outcome that favours the ungrazed plant species. So thickening is not restricted to overgrazed pastures but rather, it is speeded up by it. And that means that the clearing of thickened regrowth is a normal and necessary attribute of all grazing operations.
And this raises an interesting issue in respect of cleared alleys of, say, 90m wide with 10m of retained regrowth. For if the original pre-settlement cover had fluctuated between 7% and 13% canopy cover depending on the season, then any removal of thickened regrowth that restores the original coverage could not amount to a material change in the use.
If the clearing is only to remove a past increase in coverage then the extent of the intervention is defined by the growth that has already been exhibited. So it is entirely within the existing character and scale of operations.
Some could argue that cleared alleyways are a major change in the character of the vegetation but the wildlife don’t seem to agree with this view. It is highly unlikely that there is any open woodland fauna species that is unable to exploit the grassland/forest interface that is found in such an alleyway system. this is especially so if the native grasses are retained.
And this is the irony in it all. The greens have been so ‘clever/cunning’ in fudging data and blurring distinctions to suit their objectives that they have completely missed the possibility that one can remove up to 90% of thickened vegetation and still comply with the height, extent and compositional definitions of remnant vegetation.
It may be a SLATS data processing problem to recognise a set of 90m wide alleys as “remnant woodland” but neither farmers nor wildlife would have any problem with it. Any “clearing” would not involve reduction in the area of remnant.
I have an article from Mexico that dicusses this topic and how one family is “prospering in the desert” with a fundemental change in management. Their woody weed ‘mesquite’ (a noxious plant here) has become a crucial part of their business, rather then a problem as his father had percieved it. His father actually bulldozed it off 25,000 acres at one stage!.
I have sent it to Jennifer, but unfortunately she has not been able to put it on this blog due to some politically correct bulls@$#t.
I think it is very relevant to this debate as it is in a semi-arid area with all of the similar challenges we face.
I’ll forward it to anyone that’s really interested in possible solutions if you send me an email.
bokharaplains@bigpond.com.au
Ian – I can see one really only has the bulldozer, the match (fire) or Graslan. Economics for managing woody thickets dictates that probably bulldozer or nothing (leave it as stuffed and irretrieveable) are viablke options. I am just musing that once one has the country back to grassland with scattered trees that perhaps it is better to use the match – to prevent lignotubers goes crazy with opportunity created from bulldozing. Of course that means you have to be prepared to burn. You’d only have to to get caught sring burning once on an imminent El Nino summer to make you “burn-o-phobic”. No more grass for 9 months coz you burnt it. I can dig it.
Doing some windshield groundtruthing yesterday on a tranect from Brisvegas to the Downs it is interesting to see the vast variety of understorey regrowth in eucalyptus forests in the coastal plain – everything from totally cleared understories to seas of small eucs or a large number of moderate size trees. Probably a time since last burn x subsequent rainfall evenst (climate) interactions.
In terms of alleys I would have thought that Sir William Burrows would have recommended against such tomfoolery and had done research to prove it. I would have thought that economicallyu you want as little regrowth as possible on your grazed paddocks.
All I would ask producers is to leave some representative interconnected as much as possible refugia remnants in the landscape and develop the rest sustainably – the refugia need to be managed and treated seriously for fire regime, weeds, and pests – a high hope would be this to be regional “biorepresentative” which in some areas of typically popular agricultural landscapes it is not.
Given such wankiferous pursuits are those required by the democratic majorities of leafy suburbs that have been seduced by the greens.. – perhaps the way to fund such indulgence is by an ecological services tax for such conservation – so decide whether you want the BMW SUV or the biodiversity conservation.
Would be nice to think someone would be amd enough to recreate some softwood scrubs back around around Marburg and Boonah/Roadvale. But only the ecological indulgent probably think of such things.
The rigmarole that accompanies a burn, the paper work, approvals, risk management etc mean that most dont.
As for wild life refuges, some birds nest only in hollowed out trees which usually only occurs after a burn.
Interesting point – do Qld or NSW graziers need any permit to burn – freehold or leasehold ? In theory if not in practice ?
Thanks, Luke, Graham & Rog, I agree on Sir William’s view that an even distribution would be better than an alley system but selective thinning is really only viable when the trees being removed have a market value that can recover most of the operational cost. And that means it is better suited for the coastal areas rather than the inland open woodland areas.
Will send my email for a copy of paper shortly, Graham.
My situation in NSW is not the same as for those further west but the Fire law is basically unworkable. Even in the non-fire season one must advise all neighbours that you are burning, and for me, that means 17 houses, half of them unapproved, and a couple within 3 metres of my boundary. This notification process makes it very hard to do a small burn mosaic that would retard major fires.
Small burns are best done when the time, place and circumstances are right and this means a one or two hour window in which to act. The next window may be next night or next month but by the time all the neighbours have been contacted, even if they are at home, the dew has set and the burn is inadequate.
Luke, these small mosaic burns also spread the risk that you mentioned. Without these, the now bureaucratised and corporatised RFS wants the full, butt covering monty, with fire plan and every rig for miles around to minimise the substantially increased risk from a single large burn that, due to the delays and availability contraints, may be done on a less favourable day and without the risk minimising sequential burns. The whole lot goes up, breakouts occur, the heat load modifies the moisture content before the fires arrival and all the boys get to use all the gear.
The cocky says “never again” and then watches his fuel load get really dangerous over the next decade until the full babylon is the only option left, again.
Other meanderings on sustainability in northern grazing.
Of course there are other issues besides woodies too. At “black spear grass central” aka Gayndah – unpalatable wire grass and the like can become a problem which you can only seem to burn away.
Also Mitchell grasslands or central and north Qld can become shimmering seas of less palatable Flinders Grass from overgrazing – but not sure if you can burn the stuff. Ian Beale?
The other issue is cover (perhaps cover, cover and cover is the only issue). By argostologists (not many left) would prefer perennial tussock grasses for many reasons but how good are stoloniferous grasses (e.g. Indian Couch – Bothriocola pertusa – at maintaining soil stability and health vis a vis tussocks. And in far western rangelands there are things like crytograms. So all this simple grazing stuff has got a fair bit of detail in it.
You have to have your stocking rate management, woodie management, burning, and spelling/seed setting strategies all thought through for each different land system.
Ian Beale??
Luke,
I think you will find that Flinders grass is a summer annual and is highly palatable. I’ve seen it here occasionally and only in a higher rainfall summer when there is an abundant growth of most species. I have seen it dominate in paddocks north of Longreach and I had a job helping to bale thousands of acres of it. To burn it would not have been a very popular option as it was considered good fodder as hay. Incidently Mitchell grass does not go very well baled as it tends to turn to dust.
So I was told at the time.
Burning can and is an option in some regrowth situations but should not be the primary tool. Fire will always tend to promote the very species you are trying to control, whereas using animals allows us to ‘soften’ the vegetation and make a few dollars while we are at it.
Graham – was the large areas north of Longreach that I was thinking of. Was portrayed to me as a result of overgrazing – lower productivity system i.e. a form of degradation. I obviously assumed it’s palatability.
The need for a fire permit is somewhat pragmatic for Qld graziers. You can light a fire without a permit, but wear the costs if it escapes. Not sure if anyone visits if you do. A permit to burn, with conditions attached like fire break width, notification etc (which are not too bad out here), covers you in this case.
Fire in any of these rangelands needs something above 1000kg/ha to carry. And Murphy’s law about says when you need to burn there won’t be enough fuel and when you don’t there will be excess of fuel and likely excess of fire – eg dry summer thunderstorms with a heavy body of mitchellgrass. We’ve been waiting to burn some areas since before 2000, and have nearly lost these areas as the woodys have been compensatorilly-growing quite happily and the grass hasn’t.
Compensatory growth (without further treatment) is also where thinning loses out. The canopy is back before the repay.
A problem with even distribution of trees is the subsequent expanding-ring seedling recruitment. Alleys shorten expansion from the ends.
In these areas, up to about 10% canopy cover causes little depression in ground-layer productivity. The exponential-downwards happens rapidly from 10% on so by about 30% cover you’re down to about 25% of potential. And the canopy increase is about 1% a year. I can give the background to this if people are interested. Yield depression is different in rare cases where buffel establishes in euc drip ring areas.
OK, I’ll add a bit. Just remember that while there is a lot of journal literature on the mitchell grass area, I don’t need to read it regularly, so might be a bit rusty.
In 30+ years, I saw large areas of mitchell grass across western Qld wiped out by drought, and re-establish when seasons suited it – it is a lot more picky on this as you go south from Julia Ck, and in ashy downs. I’ve seen few instances where grazing would be the main suspect. I have also seen large areas of Aristida wiped out by drought and the mitchell grass survive.
WRT flinders – remember good condition mitchell grass has a basal cover of around 5%, which leaves 95% of the area for the winter herbage, flinders etc if the season suits. So in many cases, I think flinders is another state in the state and transition sequence, but prior history is probably in play if it’s growing on a claypan area.
Only from one source of anecdotal evidence have I heard that mitchell grass thickened after introduction of domestic livestock. Could be, as mitchell grass is the only native grass I can recall that definitely appreciates grazing.
The palatability and lasting qualities of flinders might be being oversold here – most of these perennial grass materials (including buffel)are low in protein when there is sufficient bulk to harvest. This can be overcome with molasses-urea. But post-harvest management needs to be aware that mitchell grass deaths increase when it’s used below the third node. From diet work, palatability is relative. Eg a buffel plant in a paddock of buffel is a take-or-leave proposition. A buffel plant in a paddock of Aristida is high palatability. I don’t remember either mitchell or flinders standing out in the palatability stakes.
I wasn’t really selling Flinders as hay as such Ian. My thoughts are that the most nutritious and economical way to harvest grass is via the animal eating it out in the paddock.
Native grasses respond well to grazing and perrenials will readily thicken up.
It’s the over grazing bit they dislike.
I doubt that ‘ol man drought wiped them out either….you know we’re talking about systems that are thousands of years old. Plenty of droughts in that time.
What has changed is our ability to reduce and even remove natures rest from the equation.
Your view on relative palatability is interesting as I’ve seen stock noticably favour different species in certain conditions. Old Man saltbush is one that comes to mind…grazed traditionally the stock don’t seem to bother with it unless conditions are really crook or when there is a particularly good soft winter.
Toxic Woody Weeds; most staffers these days in The Wilderness Society have never done-the-Chemistry, sufficent to know that there are powerfully toxic or ‘allelopathic’ (other plant deterring) Woody Weeds, in the large and growing List of statewide Woody Weeds(WW’s); these Toxic WW’s (=TWW’s) include the Most-toxic one yet found, Camphor laurel – with up to 18 toxins in its many Types, and now/already the dominant weed species across all-Shires of the northeast of New South Wales; their toxicity rises with global warming, especially for certain Types…..as confirmed by tests on-leaves done by UK Government
laboratory at Kew Botanic Gardens in 2002…..and known-observable from the large numbers of native birds, now seen-dying in hot weather/extremely hot and humid weather, as well as in Mass Native Bird Death Events(MNBDE), since 1955 in-this-region, by professional observers, and recorded to include thousands of native pigeons having-fed upon the fruit of Camphor’ trees.
Other TWW’s to increase their Toxicity, and hence to become more-poisonous with Global Warming(++ inc./elevated carbon dioxide concentrations) include Wild Tobacco (narcotic toxins), Broad-leaved Privet(ack. in U.S. textbooks as also seasonally ‘killing native birds’, since 2000),
Thorny Coral Tree – with its piscicides(fish poisons), and Castor Oil Plant – ack. in the Guinness Book of Records(2005) as being “the most poisonous plant species in the world”.
By not addressing the toxins-rising poisonous issue, and not even reckoning that toxicity is correlated to the demise and disappearance of a whole range of native fauna IN THIS REGION (+ prob. other regions as well), the Wilderness Society has ‘lost its duty of care’ to the established wilderness/es it has already helped create!
Yours, Joe A Friend (a foundation member of TWS!)
Independent Scientist, Research Ecologist,
& Author. http://www.camphorlaurel.com (ph)0266214878
Mob#0427022069.
Camphor laurel Research Centre, Lismore, NSW.