Nursery plant of the year in 1988

What is a weed? Opinions vary depending on perspective, climate and individual awareness but rational discussion can lead to better understanding. However, be warned that though this can be an emotive issue with strongly held views being aired, common courtesy and an acceptance that opinions and circumstances may differ is required of all participants.

Moderators: Forum_mod, Pam, Luzy, jack, Sam, midgin

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Pam » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:43 am

bubba louie wrote:Are Ipomoea alba and Asclepias physocarpa declared?


Bubba, and other Queensland members, the list of declared plants in Queensland is here:

http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/pests/weeds/d ... index.html

(it might be helpful to find the sites for the individual states and put them here?!)
User avatar
Pam
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 14418
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:06 pm
Location: Bundaberg, Qld

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Pam » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:49 am

Phil Hansen wrote: I will say again, it is not the plants that are the problem, it is the prevailing conditions that allow exotic species to colonise damaged areas in an attempt to repair at a rate we can only hope to understand.



YES!!!
User avatar
Pam
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 14418
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:06 pm
Location: Bundaberg, Qld

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Pam » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:00 am

A book well worth a read - Back from the Brink by Peter Andrews. A few of his assertions I didn't agree with, but it's a very interesting read.
User avatar
Pam
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 14418
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:06 pm
Location: Bundaberg, Qld

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:17 am

Phil Hansen wrote:Greg, you are right! Governments have indeed increased the vigour of their legislative responses to exotic plant establishment (many of which were originally introduced and encouraged for farming purposes) and it simply because of the economic and emotional pull of the agricultural sector, even when some declare weeds are no longer a problem. No weed review has been conducted by the DPI since 1974!!!!!
To suggest that if there were no exotics then natives would colonise is pure stupidity! How can you possibly know that? Have you been able to somehow create an alternative time bubble? Absolute conjecture with no logic again!
If you would like to increase your understanding of dryland salinity, step out of the suburbs and observe ridiculous farming eneterprises in Central and Northern Victoria, and you will realise that where there is vast tracts of marginal land, having been cleared well before most exotic species colonised, there is not a single tree in either the discharge or recharge zones of many catchments. Salinity is a much deeper issue than just saying 'weeds, weeds, weeds'. I am beginning to think you are starting to stretch your arguments well beyond your knowledge.

I know from field experience Phil. I have seen the following species vigorously colonising distubed sites alongside the weeds. Solanum laciniatum, Linum marginale, Solanum aviculare, Austrotipa scabra, Acaena novea-zelandiae. Acaena ovina, Atriplex semibaccata, Einadia nutans, Convolvulus erubescens, Cynoglossum sueveolens, Mentha australis, Sennecio quadridentatus, Wahlenbergia communis, Acacia dealbata. All these are very aggressive colonisers when there is sufficient soil moisture.

I might also add Phil the sites at which I have observed this have nearly all had an almost 100% cover of introduced weeds (apart from the Eucalypts and Wattles) but were cleared by the local council at some point and planted with the above species, among others.

There are so depressingly few and small sites, in the Melbourne region, where these and other species occur naturally.
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby brill » Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:50 am

OK, first off Bunnings do distribute over a wide area, but not all Bunnings have the same range of plants. And Bunnings staff are not usually very well trained so they couldn't pick a 'weed' anyway.
As for my garden, I relocated the nursery 12months ago so had to take what came with the block. Fruit & nut trees (some of which have already been pulled out because were planted incorrectly) Horrible cocos palms surrounding the house section which I'd love to get rid of but do serve a function and I can't afford it anyway. Native trees along boundaries, mostly hybrids but some naturally seeded wattles. I've just set up some garden beds and planted with natives (ones we intend to propagate from). Unfortunately I'm not very good with my digital camera because I don't get much time to use it. Also, my garden is my nursery. I keep the garden tidy but It's a bit like mechanics having the worst car.
I agree we should be vigilant and careful and that there are a lot of weeds or potential weeds in suburban gardens but also think 'sofly sofly catchee monkey' . We can't correct past problems, or even present problems, over night. Thankfully the younger generation is more aware of the environment.
To change the topic does anyone else think this carbon credit thing is a con. Its just another name for a tax. I believe any plants that can qualify for carbon credits has to be a tree over so many metres high - it doesn't qualify until it gets that high. That means even smaller trees in a rainforest don't qualify. It also means all our plants in our gardens, road sides etc have absolutely no bearing. I'm sure shrubs and smaller trees absorb carbon too. Given this, I can see lots of fast growing non-indigenous plants going in.
Brill
Brill
brill
Senior Curator
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:51 am

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Phil Hansen » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:10 am

Hi Brill,
I think carbon credits and the burgeoning indusstry that has sprung up around it is a dangerous area. There is an awful lot of energy being used, and money to be made, from the accounting of carbon credits. We desperatley need to sequester carbon all across the globe, so we should simply continue to plant trees and a rapid rate and forget about the accountability of who is offsetting what activity. Credits, it seems to me, is a way of policing and subsequently, licensing pollution and polluters, so there is little effective reduction in CO2 emmissions. Whilst most domestic consumers have done their bit and play a minor role in the broader scheme of things, it is still the larger companies that need to make major reforms in the way they produce the consumables we use, and crediting carbon does nothing to this end. Some carbon trading companies are claiming existing forest ecosystems as their offsets!!! Storing carbon in the soil profile as organic matter is 30 times more effective thatn tree planting (as carbon cannot be considered sequestered for up to 300 years), but unfortunatley the accountants still haven't come up with a suitable formula to quantify soil sequestration in Australia, despite the fact that many other countries presently use this. It would be a wonderful opportunity to lock up poorly managed, marginal farm land to store carbon in Australia.
The big issue is that we need to store carbon, and less about how to account for it. Maybe there are more informed people than myself out there who could start a new forum on this.
Cheers,
Phil Hansen
PHIL HANSEN

Dyslexics are teople poo
Phil Hansen
Curator
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Castlemaine (Vic)

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Pam » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:42 am

The whole issue of carbon credits is a huge joke as far as I'm concerned. It's all about big money making big money yet again. Enabling companies to buy their way out of taking responsibility for the emissions they create isn't addressing the issue in the slightest.
User avatar
Pam
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 14418
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:06 pm
Location: Bundaberg, Qld

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Phil Hansen » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:49 am

Agreed!
:cry:
PHIL HANSEN

Dyslexics are teople poo
Phil Hansen
Curator
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Castlemaine (Vic)

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Mister Wisteria » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:11 pm

Pam wrote:The whole issue of carbon credits is a huge joke as far as I'm concerned. It's all about big money making big money yet again. Enabling companies to buy their way out of taking responsibility for the emissions they create isn't addressing the issue in the slightest.


Well said Pam, that makes two of us that think we are having the wool pulled over our eyes.
Slip Slop & Slap and Don't Forget Your Hat.

Anti Skin Cancer Foundation.
User avatar
Mister Wisteria
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 6061
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:10 pm
Location: Glen Waverley

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:53 pm

brill wrote:I agree we should be vigilant and careful and that there are a lot of weeds or potential weeds in suburban gardens but also think 'sofly sofly catchee monkey' . We can't correct past problems, or even present problems, over night. Thankfully the younger generation is more aware of the environment.
Brill

Please view this youtube video to illistrate why I believe the time for 'sofly sofly catchee monkey' is well and truly over and has been for some decades: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE

The video is actually about exponential growth of the global population along with its inevitable ecological overshoot and collapse. However they use the example of an aquatic environmental weed swamping a lake to illistrate the problems of excessive lag time between the scientific communities' recognition of a growing problem, acknowledgment of the same problem by society at large and firm politcal action to solve the problem. This example is directly applicable to the environmental weed debate, except that we are talking about decades and multiple generations rather than days. It is in the second half of the video so you will just have to sit through the first half.

Sorry Brill but, putting it bluntly, it is time for head kicking and temporarily unpopular political action as was and is the case with climate change. Leadership in short.

brill wrote:To change the topic does anyone else think this carbon credit thing is a con. Its just another name for a tax. Brill

I would have assumed that raising revenue, supposedly for creation of non-polluting energy sources, is not the only point of a psuedo carbon tax. Isn't the point of it to also restrict consumption by raising the price???? In that case who cares if it is a psuedo tax as long as it contributes to the desired outcome of reducing carbon emissions.
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Phil Hansen » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:00 pm

Unfortunatley it is not government agencies raising the money from carbon trading, it is private companies that have the potential to make bucket loads, there is nothing from them going back into research towards alternative energy sources. They are middle-men traders offering absolutely no incentive to reduce carbon emmissions.
PHIL HANSEN

Dyslexics are teople poo
Phil Hansen
Curator
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Castlemaine (Vic)

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:15 pm

Phil Hansen wrote:Unfortunatley it is not government agencies raising the money from carbon trading, it is private companies that have the potential to make bucket loads, there is nothing from them going back into research towards alternative energy sources. They are middle-men traders offering absolutely no incentive to reduce carbon emmissions.

Surely the government would not be so stupid as to not include provisions in the legislation to compel these middle men to spend some percentage of their revenue on renewable energy projects?????
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Phil Hansen » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:22 pm

I wish I could have that much faith in the intelligence of public servants. I personally know of two people running trading companies; there is no return to the greater good and no compulsion that I am aware of. The industry is moving at breakneck speed and legislation cannot keep up. While there is some investment grants from the Feds available, it is tiny and goes to energy producers and emrging technology companies, not the middle men traders. I do wish things were so simple.
PHIL HANSEN

Dyslexics are teople poo
Phil Hansen
Curator
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Castlemaine (Vic)

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Phil Hansen » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:24 pm

The topic seems to have drifted from environmental weeds to carbon trading.
PHIL HANSEN

Dyslexics are teople poo
Phil Hansen
Curator
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: Castlemaine (Vic)

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:26 pm

Pam wrote:
bubba louie wrote:Are Ipomoea alba and Asclepias physocarpa declared?


Bubba, and other Queensland members, the list of declared plants in Queensland is here:

http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/pests/weeds/d ... index.html

(it might be helpful to find the sites for the individual states and put them here?!)

You will find all the state noxious weed lists in one place at:

http://www.weeds.org.au
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:31 pm

brill wrote:OK, first off Bunnings do distribute over a wide area, but not all Bunnings have the same range of plants. And Bunnings staff are not usually very well trained so they couldn't pick a 'weed' anyway.
As for my garden, I relocated the nursery 12months ago so had to take what came with the block. Fruit & nut trees (some of which have already been pulled out because were planted incorrectly) Horrible cocos palms surrounding the house section which I'd love to get rid of but do serve a function and I can't afford it anyway. Native trees along boundaries, mostly hybrids but some naturally seeded wattles. I've just set up some garden beds and planted with natives (ones we intend to propagate from). Unfortunately I'm not very good with my digital camera because I don't get much time to use it. Also, my garden is my nursery. I keep the garden tidy but It's a bit like mechanics having the worst car.
I agree we should be vigilant and careful and that there are a lot of weeds or potential weeds in suburban gardens but also think 'sofly sofly catchee monkey' . We can't correct past problems, or even present problems, over night. Thankfully the younger generation is more aware of the environment.
To change the topic does anyone else think this carbon credit thing is a con. Its just another name for a tax. I believe any plants that can qualify for carbon credits has to be a tree over so many metres high - it doesn't qualify until it gets that high. That means even smaller trees in a rainforest don't qualify. It also means all our plants in our gardens, road sides etc have absolutely no bearing. I'm sure shrubs and smaller trees absorb carbon too. Given this, I can see lots of fast growing non-indigenous plants going in.
Brill
Brill

OK then another example. A generic wholesale nursery that sells to all the major garden centre chains along with countless other independant retail nurseries across the nation. Compared to such a powerful and efficient distribution network, Asion Koels and flying foxes have a less significant and localised environmental impact.
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby Pam » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:56 pm

boylesg wrote:
Pam wrote:
(it might be helpful to find the sites for the individual states and put them here?!)

You will find all the state noxious weed lists in one place at:

http://www.weeds.org.au


Nope! Not there.
User avatar
Pam
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 14418
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:06 pm
Location: Bundaberg, Qld

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:11 pm

Pam wrote:
boylesg wrote:
Pam wrote:
(it might be helpful to find the sites for the individual states and put them here?!)

You will find all the state noxious weed lists in one place at:

http://www.weeds.org.au


Nope! Not there.

Well that SUCKS doesn't it. They did have all the links there. If you look at the very bottom of the page for NSW they still have the government link for that one.

Never mind....here are the rest then:

NSW: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds
VIC: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/LinkView/9B2A7AB4FD562D03CA256BC800058E91
TAS: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/SSKA-73U3QA?open
QLD: http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/pests/weeds/a_z_listing.html
SA: http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/lbsap_declarationofplantsandanimals.pdf
WA: http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/PW/WEED/DECP/200712_declaredplants.pdf
NT: http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/natres/weeds/pdf/weeds_gazzette.pdf

Please note: They change the page locations and formats from time to time so you will have to keep up to date as to their current web address.

Also please note: Most of these I obtained directly from DPI (or interstate equivalent) employees through the enviroweeds network, otherwise I would never have found them myself.

I can see a very strong case to have the format and location of these lists standardised, apart from on weeds.org.au What's the use of vital info like this if it is difficult to find.
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby taffyman » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:20 pm

Global warming/Climate change, Carbon credits, Carbon trading? What a load of CLAP-TRAP. The garbage in my rubbish bin smells better than that! To me, this is the biggest con ever foisted on the worlds population.
It is remotely possible that the planet is warming up, but obviously a lot of people have very short memories - or choose to eliminate certain research from their conclusions because it isn't 'flavour of the month'. Quite a few years ago leading scientists were advising that the planet was heading into the next ice-age (no time frame but could start to occur within the next millenium). Before this could occur though, the planet would warm up slightly first.
I was listening to the 'experts' about global warming/climate change with a bit of interest, but as soon as the terms Carbon Trading and Carbon Credits were mentioned they lost me completely. This whole con is about money making. The big boys in the game are out to make money - at our expense. No matter what changes are made by governments, it is us, the 'brainwashed' majority at the lowest end of the human food chain that will pay for it all. Governments don't make the decisions on this issue - the big business boys do, and then they tell the goverments what to do. If governments made the decisions, they would have outlawed 'Carbon Credits' and 'Carbon Trading' as soon as they heard about it. Those offensive (to me) terms just mean that the heavy polluters can just go about their business in their normal fashion. "Oh, we'll pay someone to plant a few trees just to keep the brainwashed majority happy and boost their nice warm fuzzy feelings - they'll suck it in because we will be 'seen' to be doing the right thing. By the way, our profits are down a bit this year - maybe we should build another power station."
Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that even if we shut down every coal/oil/gas/nuclear fired power station in the world, trashed every vehicle in the world and stopped every manufacturer from producing, that we would have even the most miniscule affect on the planet? Do you realize that at any one time there are at least 150 volcanoes erupting somewhere on this lump of rock? Volcanoes put more toxic compounds into the atmosphere than we could ever think of. Considering the huge amounts of pollution put into the atmosphere in the industrial revolution era, it's rather strange that the planet didn't drastically warm up during that period. We should have all perished many years ago if the gibberish is true about the planet warming up because of us.
I do agree that way too much destruction of flora is going on all around the world - including here in Oz, but how do you propose to stop it? Try telling places like Indonesia, the Amazon region, China etc that they need to stop what they are doing. It won't happen! China at the moment is building something four new coal fired power stations a month. The junk they manufacture is being exported all over the world - along with its inherent health problems. Have we done anything about it? Of course not! We still import it, we still buy it, so we are condoning their practices - and it will get worse with the 'free-trade' agreements.
I could go on and on about this farce, and I just know quite a lot of you would like to take me to task over what I've just written - so go ahead if you want to, but honestly, I really don't care. Everybody has a right to believe what they want to. These are my views, and my views only. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Unfortunately, none of us will be around to see the results - but I have a sneaky suspicion that generations way off in the future are going to have a good laugh at the history being created in this current age.
Taffy
Have fun, life is way too short for anything else
User avatar
taffyman
Garden Wizard
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:38 pm
Location: Fraser Coast Queensland

Re: Nursery plant of the year in 1988

Postby boylesg » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:55 pm

Pam wrote:
Phil Hansen wrote: I will say again, it is not the plants that are the problem, it is the prevailing conditions that allow exotic species to colonise damaged areas in an attempt to repair at a rate we can only hope to understand.



YES!!!

Prevailing conditions that allowed exotic plants to colonise the Australian lanscapes....

1) From the onset of colonisation we engaged in the wholesale
clearing of land that, over the decades, has severely
fragmented and weakened populations of Australian flora.

2) We largely replaced deep rooted perreneial native plants with
shallow rooted and annual exotic plants that absorb less rainfall.

3) Along with all these exotic plants we failed to also import the
natural biological control agents, that evolved with each species
in its country of origin and that keep the species in balance
with the local ecosystem.

4) We hugely altered the hydrology of landscapes by diverting water ways,
changing flow regimes and interfering with flood and dry cycles that
native flora had evolved to rely on for their survival and reproduction.

4a) The loss of native vegetation meant the demise of local populations of
fauna, including many plant species specific polinators. Now whole suites
of native plants had very little chance of being able to recover their numbers.

5) More water entering the water table resulted in rising water tables, that
disolved subsurface salt and creating salt seeps - dry land salinity.

6) The lack of tough perenial vegetation cover resulted in the rapid loss
of our thin top soils and massive erosion in the fragile and exposed subsoils,
along our water ways and catchments. It is very difficult to get any plants to
establish in pure sub-soil but biological control agent free exotic plants have a
very clear advantage.

7) Our largely poor and impoverished soils could not sustain many of
exotic plants we imported, so we dumped vast amounts of fertiliser
into the Australian landscape. Many native plants thrive in poor
impoversihed soils because they have evolved physiological mechanisms
to overcome such short comings. However those same mechanisms often
make rich soils quite toxic to the native plants, e.g. phosphorous sensitivity.

I am very much focused on issues 1 and 3.
Gregary Boyles
User avatar
boylesg
Curator
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Epping

PreviousNext

Return to Environmental weeds

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest