Can a case be made for growing willows in Australia.

Neomyrtus has this to say about whether to keep willows on a creek line.

———————————————————————————————————————-
up to you – introduced to stabilise creeklines – end up invading and choking creeklines, snapping off and spreading downstream into other areas. Leaf drop in winter = more light = algae increase. Also leads to changes in invertebrate abundance and community composition than would be seen in intact, tannin-rich, evergreen native riparian vegetation.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00104.x/abstract;jsessionid=ECE69CC6221DAC95056C594B6C580854.f04t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00008869

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.01008.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.444474.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

A Lurking Chemist would have much more to say on the topic of N, C and light and water chemistry..
——————————————————————————————————————————-

I’ll check out her references later but I’d like to hear from a devils advocate.

ring Alan Jones.

• I’d like to hear from a devils advocate.

Surely it is unaustralian to use imported willow to make cricket bats…

I prefer Willows 7 over Willows 8.

evil willow

Spiny Norman said:

I prefer Willows 7 over Willows 8.

Yes it opens a whole new vista.

I’d like to hear the willowcase

Peak Warming Man said:

CSIRO and Greening Australia has this to say about whether to keep willows on a creek line.

*fixed

On a tree by a river a little tom-tit sang….

Dropbear said:

On a tree by a river a little tom-tit sang….

Funny word tom-tit. It has so many meanings :)

Blimey!!, it’s evil.

http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/willows/docs/Willows_Sect1.pdf

They show a cricket bat made of willow sprouting, that’s right sprouting, a cricket bat is a potential willow vector.
I think they are hinting at a cricket bat buy back.

There’s always the Titwillow Twist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV4Qs_abGGw

Peak Warming Man said:

Blimey!!, it’s evil.

http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/willows/docs/Willows_Sect1.pdf

They show a cricket bat made of willow sprouting, that’s right sprouting, a cricket bat is a potential willow vector.
I think they are hinting at a cricket bat buy back.

Evil tree. Maybe we should make cricket bats out of camphor laurel.

a cricket bat should be made from good sturdy aluminium..

LILLEY knew.

Dropbear said:

a cricket bat should be made from good sturdy aluminium..

LILLEY knew.

He did but they make a horrible sound.

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

a cricket bat should be made from good sturdy aluminium..

LILLEY knew.

He did but they make a horrible sound.

over Javed Miandad’s head? ;)

• LILLEY knew

Only because Lillee told him…

Dropbear said:

Tamb said:

Dropbear said:

a cricket bat should be made from good sturdy aluminium..

LILLEY knew.

He did but they make a horrible sound.

over Javed Miandad’s head? ;)

No that was a good sound.
Part of the beauty of cricket is the sound of willow on leather or in my case the swish of yet another air swing.

When I moved into this house, about 12 years ago, there was a huge willow in the backyard. After the third time I had to call a plumber to get the pipes cleaned out of willow root I decided I had enough, and down it came.

furious said:

• LILLEY knew

Only because Lillee told him…

before my time …

although i do keep running into Thommo at westfield carindale

Speaking of which, I don’t rate Gilbert and Sullivan highly.

dv said:

Speaking of which, I don’t rate Gilbert and Sullivan highly.

G&S, like JRRR Tolkein, and Bill Shakespeare, are probably both greatly over-rated and greatly under-rated.

Well I don’t care much about whether they are overrated or underrated.
I think Shakespeare is very good, Tolkein has his moments, and G&S are a bit ordinary.

Looks like no one will speak for the Willow tree, the humble Willow tree who’s bark makes you better when you bite it.

I’ll probably say a few words then joylessly start up the chain saw next time I’m up there.
Maybe the Governor might make a last minute post saying that Willows are OK.

Peak Warming Man said:

Looks like no one will speak for the Willow tree, the humble Willow tree who’s bark makes you better when you bite it.

I’ll probably say a few words then joylessly start up the chain saw next time I’m up there.
Maybe the Governor might make a last minute post saying that Willows are OK.

The Cricket bat willow isn’t the one accused of clogging creeks. Though it hasn’t been planted extensively along creek banks as yet.

Weeds depending on the circumstances, can be an asset in some environments. Regarding willows, it must be borne in mind that their tangled roots can provide safe habitat for various species including native fish that would otherwise be exterminated without this protection. In the Murray catchment, it was common practise to remove dead trees so they would not interfere with riverboat traffic: this action adversely affected many native species like the Murray Cod, so such clogging timber that slowed river flow and provided habitat is not necessarily bad.

Deciding if the willows are an asset or a pest will largely depend on the creatures that call the waterway home, especially what introduced species are also resident, because if the willows are providing protection and habitat to native species, their removal will be disastrous. Even good native habitat may not provide protection from introduced predators and to clean-up weeds in these areas without investigation can be the worse thing for the environment.

Weeds like blackberry in non-aquatic environments can also be a benefit, as these might be the only reason small ground dwelling mammals like bandicoots survive in an area, they being smaller can make their home within the thorny thickets whereas feral cats and foxes cannot easily follow. So a landowner wanting to enhance the native species by thoughtlessly clearing these sites could be the instrument in sending remnant fauna extinct.

The point is, it is not a simple yes or no situation, as the existing environment needs to be examined to ascertain what if any species will be affected and then act accordingly. It may be necessary to remove the weeds, but then it should be done gradually (over several years) to permit suitable protective indigenous species to take their place.

I take it this IS an exotic willow and not what some call a native willow, some sort of casuarina?

Peak Warming Man said:

I take it this IS an exotic willow and not what some call a native willow, some sort of casuarina?

Salix babylonica

PermeateFree said:

Weeds depending on the circumstances, can be an asset in some environments. Regarding willows, it must be borne in mind that their tangled roots can provide safe habitat for various species including native fish that would otherwise be exterminated without this protection. In the Murray catchment, it was common practise to remove dead trees so they would not interfere with riverboat traffic: this action adversely affected many native species like the Murray Cod, so such clogging timber that slowed river flow and provided habitat is not necessarily bad.

Deciding if the willows are an asset or a pest will largely depend on the creatures that call the waterway home, especially what introduced species are also resident, because if the willows are providing protection and habitat to native species, their removal will be disastrous. Even good native habitat may not provide protection from introduced predators and to clean-up weeds in these areas without investigation can be the worse thing for the environment.

Weeds like blackberry in non-aquatic environments can also be a benefit, as these might be the only reason small ground dwelling mammals like bandicoots survive in an area, they being smaller can make their home within the thorny thickets whereas feral cats and foxes cannot easily follow. So a landowner wanting to enhance the native species by thoughtlessly clearing these sites could be the instrument in sending remnant fauna extinct.

The point is, it is not a simple yes or no situation, as the existing environment needs to be examined to ascertain what if any species will be affected and then act accordingly. It may be necessary to remove the weeds, but then it should be done gradually (over several years) to permit suitable protective indigenous species to take their place.

Weeds simply replace the lost plants. In such instances they are in some way replacing the lost habitat. Pull them all and there is no habitat. The water has no shade, the banks have no shade.

Willows are not good in the long run but meantime there needs to be the natural Acacia or other riverbank species, depending upon the particular stream bank flora.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Weeds depending on the circumstances, can be an asset in some environments. Regarding willows, it must be borne in mind that their tangled roots can provide safe habitat for various species including native fish that would otherwise be exterminated without this protection. In the Murray catchment, it was common practise to remove dead trees so they would not interfere with riverboat traffic: this action adversely affected many native species like the Murray Cod, so such clogging timber that slowed river flow and provided habitat is not necessarily bad.

Deciding if the willows are an asset or a pest will largely depend on the creatures that call the waterway home, especially what introduced species are also resident, because if the willows are providing protection and habitat to native species, their removal will be disastrous. Even good native habitat may not provide protection from introduced predators and to clean-up weeds in these areas without investigation can be the worse thing for the environment.

Weeds like blackberry in non-aquatic environments can also be a benefit, as these might be the only reason small ground dwelling mammals like bandicoots survive in an area, they being smaller can make their home within the thorny thickets whereas feral cats and foxes cannot easily follow. So a landowner wanting to enhance the native species by thoughtlessly clearing these sites could be the instrument in sending remnant fauna extinct.

The point is, it is not a simple yes or no situation, as the existing environment needs to be examined to ascertain what if any species will be affected and then act accordingly. It may be necessary to remove the weeds, but then it should be done gradually (over several years) to permit suitable protective indigenous species to take their place.

Weeds simply replace the lost plants. In such instances they are in some way replacing the lost habitat. Pull them all and there is no habitat. The water has no shade, the banks have no shade.

Willows are not good in the long run but meantime there needs to be the natural Acacia or other riverbank species, depending upon the particular stream bank flora.

I think you misread my post.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Weeds depending on the circumstances, can be an asset in some environments. Regarding willows, it must be borne in mind that their tangled roots can provide safe habitat for various species including native fish that would otherwise be exterminated without this protection. In the Murray catchment, it was common practise to remove dead trees so they would not interfere with riverboat traffic: this action adversely affected many native species like the Murray Cod, so such clogging timber that slowed river flow and provided habitat is not necessarily bad.

Deciding if the willows are an asset or a pest will largely depend on the creatures that call the waterway home, especially what introduced species are also resident, because if the willows are providing protection and habitat to native species, their removal will be disastrous. Even good native habitat may not provide protection from introduced predators and to clean-up weeds in these areas without investigation can be the worse thing for the environment.

Weeds like blackberry in non-aquatic environments can also be a benefit, as these might be the only reason small ground dwelling mammals like bandicoots survive in an area, they being smaller can make their home within the thorny thickets whereas feral cats and foxes cannot easily follow. So a landowner wanting to enhance the native species by thoughtlessly clearing these sites could be the instrument in sending remnant fauna extinct.

The point is, it is not a simple yes or no situation, as the existing environment needs to be examined to ascertain what if any species will be affected and then act accordingly. It may be necessary to remove the weeds, but then it should be done gradually (over several years) to permit suitable protective indigenous species to take their place.

Weeds simply replace the lost plants. In such instances they are in some way replacing the lost habitat. Pull them all and there is no habitat. The water has no shade, the banks have no shade.

Willows are not good in the long run but meantime there needs to be the natural Acacia or other riverbank species, depending upon the particular stream bank flora.

I think you misread my post.

I didn’t disagree with your post.

I’ll try to get time to take photos. There have been millions of willows removed around my area over the past 40 years. Recently everything was removed to refurbish a main irrigation supply canal. The bronze-winged pigeons are still there despite the loss of habitat.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Weeds simply replace the lost plants. In such instances they are in some way replacing the lost habitat. Pull them all and there is no habitat. The water has no shade, the banks have no shade.

Willows are not good in the long run but meantime there needs to be the natural Acacia or other riverbank species, depending upon the particular stream bank flora.

I think you misread my post.

I didn’t disagree with your post.

I see no reference to it at all, so no need to reply to mine. If you want to make an unrelated statement, then just use the reply button instead of the quote one.

From chat:

neomyrtus_ said:

speaking of guardrails

hey Michael five – this biker was very lucky..

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9283879/Crash-victim-clings-to-tree-in-river

Heck!

(Motorcyclist saved by willow tree.)