Hi Sandpiper If you have a sheltered spot, then I’d plant some Viminalis, fast growing and readily regenerates. Urnigera and Glaucescens would also be good choices and Rodwayi is definitely going to be one I think will work out well, very wind resilient and frost hardy. If you are near the coast, or on a south facing slope where the frosts burn off quickly, then perhaps Globulus, again very fast growing. 🍀
Not sure you can coppice Nitens, those I cut back here all died, but they were blown down by Storm Barra, so broken roots wouldn’t have helped. I will update if I cut down a mature one. Globulus, the same family can be coppiced from the research I’ve done. Not the most frost hardy, though those I had here initially were very shaded and I am on a North facing slope, so not ideal. I’ve planted more😉 🍀
@@Craig-Mitchell I've cut a handful of mature nitens, 5 years old ish. All sprouted new leaves, but only one is still going. So no, they don't seem to coppice well! They grow amazingly though
That’s great to hear from experience, thanks 👍🏻 Globulus grow faster, or they were here ! though as I say, not as frost hardy as the Nitens, though they were also younger and trees become a bit hardier with maturity. If you aren’t too frosty where you are, then worth trying a few 😉
Worried about the ecosystem, but planting non-native plants that destroy the local ecosystem? In the US, we've seen a loss of 30,000,000 songbirds because folks have planted non-native plants so much... and the local insect population declines as a result since they have less food. No insects means no food for baby birds. Bradford Pear, Honeysuckle, Kudzu, English Ivy, the list of plants that have gotten out of containment to pollute the natural environment is very long, and the damage done is almost invisible because people only see the "green" and think everything's wonderful. In reality, millions of acres of land have been lost to the ecosystem no different than an oil spill because those plants haven't evolved with the local food web. Nothing eats the non-native plants, or uses them as homes, so they can grow at a much faster rate and outcompete the native plants. Dr. Doug Tallamy has done quite a few videos on the issue, and I'm sure the data he's collected over the years would be applicable to Ireland as much as the US and Canada. Given the choice between Salix and Eucalyptus, I'd choose the native willow without hesitation. The willow feeds the local food web, providing homes and foods for the pollinators and birds. Ireland is suffering from a loss of biodiversity simply because the people of Ireland don't see their green spaces as a finite resource. Importing thousands of immigrants every year means more need for houses, roads, and the like. Destroying the traditional hedgerows in favor of wire fencing that's "easier" also destroys vital habitat for small mammals and everything else. But, trying to explain that to folks is an uphill battle. People will opt for what they want, what they see as immediately better for them, and that's why we're at the point we are.
Here on my small patch of land, which was non native grass / lawn when I arrived; after planting the Eucalyptus which aren’t invasive here in Ireland, I have many more native insects, plants and animals 😁 I hear the concerns of the non-native lobby, though it often lacks a balanced argument. Before I planted even one Eucalyptus here, I did a full year of research. Before I planted even one Paulownia here I did TWO ! 10,000 years ago Ireland was covered in ICE, go back further in time and it was tropical rain forest and swamp. So native species are just a small moment in the eons of time. One of the primary reasons for me promoting Eucalyptus here in Ireland is as an alternative carbon neutral sustainable alternative to burning turf, which is extremely environmentally detrimental, especially when it comes to climate change. Droughts, wild fires and then torrential rain and flooding here in Europe, not to mention the recent unusual storms in the Americas, convince me that my small efforts to counteract climate change are worthwhile. The evident increase in species assures me that I am adding to biodiversity, native and non native, which can only be a good thing. The small ecosystem here is healthy and in balance; the huge increase in birds, insects, native wild flowers and mammals are testament to this.
@@Craig-Mitchell Except that the premise at the foundation doesn't match the science we've accumulated. That's why I cited Dr. Tallamy's work. In short, the idea that since everything is so ephemeral, doing what you want, as it pleases you, is perfectly acceptable. Having worked in the "Green Industry" for years, I'm familiar with that concept. And it's why we saw the death of the American Chestnut and millions of acres destroyed by Kudzu. The science clearly shows that when you add a non-native plant to an ecosystem it hasn't evolved with, the best you can hope for is a Zero Sum. More often than not, unfortunately, it's actually a detriment to the local ecosystem because it crowds out the native species that the animals have evolved to rely on. A classic example of this would be the Monarch Butterfly population declining because the milkweed plants they rely on have been fairly destroyed in large sections of land, so there isn't a continuous chain of the plant from north to south. I would also point out that your estimation of the climate seems a bit contradictory. If things are changing so much that Ireland was under a glacier 10,000 years ago, and was a swamp before that, how can we say that anything seen today is problematic rather than simply part of the process of change? The storms in the US are no more powerful or plentiful than they were 100 years ago. The sea levels haven't risen, as shown by Ellis Island photographs from the late 1800's or early 1900's. And even if things were getting measurably worse, how can we know that introducing non-native plants is the right solution? After all, it takes millennia for evolution to happen. That means many species of insects, pollinators, and birds will go extinct in the meantime as their food sources are removed in favor of the non-native plants. We're already seeing that worldwide, which would indicate that the idea non-natives don't hurt things isn't valid. In short, I'd posit that the only rational option is to stick with what you know works, what's been proven to work over the last thousand years. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke.... don't "fix" it. We know the native plants work in the local ecosystem. We have hundreds of examples of non-native plants causing problems in the local ecosystems. So....
What's the best euc variety for coppicing and firewood you've found so far? Thanks.
Hi Sandpiper
If you have a sheltered spot, then I’d plant some Viminalis, fast growing and readily regenerates. Urnigera and Glaucescens would also be good choices and Rodwayi is definitely going to be one I think will work out well, very wind resilient and frost hardy.
If you are near the coast, or on a south facing slope where the frosts burn off quickly, then perhaps Globulus, again very fast growing.
🍀
@@Craig-Mitchell Thanks. I have nitens, neglecta and gunnii so far. Glaucesens might be next on the list
Not sure you can coppice Nitens, those I cut back here all died, but they were blown down by Storm Barra, so broken roots wouldn’t have helped. I will update if I cut down a mature one.
Globulus, the same family can be coppiced from the research I’ve done. Not the most frost hardy, though those I had here initially were very shaded and I am on a North facing slope, so not ideal. I’ve planted more😉
🍀
@@Craig-Mitchell I've cut a handful of mature nitens, 5 years old ish. All sprouted new leaves, but only one is still going. So no, they don't seem to coppice well! They grow amazingly though
That’s great to hear from experience, thanks 👍🏻
Globulus grow faster, or they were here ! though as I say, not as frost hardy as the Nitens, though they were also younger and trees become a bit hardier with maturity.
If you aren’t too frosty where you are, then worth trying a few 😉
Worried about the ecosystem, but planting non-native plants that destroy the local ecosystem? In the US, we've seen a loss of 30,000,000 songbirds because folks have planted non-native plants so much... and the local insect population declines as a result since they have less food. No insects means no food for baby birds.
Bradford Pear, Honeysuckle, Kudzu, English Ivy, the list of plants that have gotten out of containment to pollute the natural environment is very long, and the damage done is almost invisible because people only see the "green" and think everything's wonderful. In reality, millions of acres of land have been lost to the ecosystem no different than an oil spill because those plants haven't evolved with the local food web. Nothing eats the non-native plants, or uses them as homes, so they can grow at a much faster rate and outcompete the native plants.
Dr. Doug Tallamy has done quite a few videos on the issue, and I'm sure the data he's collected over the years would be applicable to Ireland as much as the US and Canada.
Given the choice between Salix and Eucalyptus, I'd choose the native willow without hesitation. The willow feeds the local food web, providing homes and foods for the pollinators and birds. Ireland is suffering from a loss of biodiversity simply because the people of Ireland don't see their green spaces as a finite resource. Importing thousands of immigrants every year means more need for houses, roads, and the like. Destroying the traditional hedgerows in favor of wire fencing that's "easier" also destroys vital habitat for small mammals and everything else. But, trying to explain that to folks is an uphill battle. People will opt for what they want, what they see as immediately better for them, and that's why we're at the point we are.
Here on my small patch of land, which was non native grass / lawn when I arrived; after planting the Eucalyptus which aren’t invasive here in Ireland, I have many more native insects, plants and animals 😁
I hear the concerns of the non-native lobby, though it often lacks a balanced argument.
Before I planted even one Eucalyptus here, I did a full year of research.
Before I planted even one Paulownia here I did TWO !
10,000 years ago Ireland was covered in ICE, go back further in time and it was tropical rain forest and swamp. So native species are just a small moment in the eons of time.
One of the primary reasons for me promoting Eucalyptus here in Ireland is as an alternative carbon neutral sustainable alternative to burning turf, which is extremely environmentally detrimental, especially when it comes to climate change. Droughts, wild fires and then torrential rain and flooding here in Europe, not to mention the recent unusual storms in the Americas, convince me that my small efforts to counteract climate change are worthwhile.
The evident increase in species assures me that I am adding to biodiversity, native and non native, which can only be a good thing. The small ecosystem here is healthy and in balance; the huge increase in birds, insects, native wild flowers and mammals are testament to this.
@@Craig-Mitchell Except that the premise at the foundation doesn't match the science we've accumulated. That's why I cited Dr. Tallamy's work.
In short, the idea that since everything is so ephemeral, doing what you want, as it pleases you, is perfectly acceptable. Having worked in the "Green Industry" for years, I'm familiar with that concept. And it's why we saw the death of the American Chestnut and millions of acres destroyed by Kudzu.
The science clearly shows that when you add a non-native plant to an ecosystem it hasn't evolved with, the best you can hope for is a Zero Sum. More often than not, unfortunately, it's actually a detriment to the local ecosystem because it crowds out the native species that the animals have evolved to rely on. A classic example of this would be the Monarch Butterfly population declining because the milkweed plants they rely on have been fairly destroyed in large sections of land, so there isn't a continuous chain of the plant from north to south.
I would also point out that your estimation of the climate seems a bit contradictory. If things are changing so much that Ireland was under a glacier 10,000 years ago, and was a swamp before that, how can we say that anything seen today is problematic rather than simply part of the process of change? The storms in the US are no more powerful or plentiful than they were 100 years ago. The sea levels haven't risen, as shown by Ellis Island photographs from the late 1800's or early 1900's.
And even if things were getting measurably worse, how can we know that introducing non-native plants is the right solution? After all, it takes millennia for evolution to happen. That means many species of insects, pollinators, and birds will go extinct in the meantime as their food sources are removed in favor of the non-native plants. We're already seeing that worldwide, which would indicate that the idea non-natives don't hurt things isn't valid.
In short, I'd posit that the only rational option is to stick with what you know works, what's been proven to work over the last thousand years. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke.... don't "fix" it. We know the native plants work in the local ecosystem. We have hundreds of examples of non-native plants causing problems in the local ecosystems. So....
ua-cam.com/video/M7ixZr_Zj48/v-deo.html