Land use in Australia's rangelands [administration and management policies] Young, M.D. (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (Australia). Div. of Wildlife and Rangelands Research); Walker, P.A; Cocks, K.D. (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra (Australia). Div. of Water and Land Resources)
Australian rangeland journal,
(1986), Letnik:
8, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Plant communities of the poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea) lands of eastern Australia Beeston, G.R. (Victorian Land Conservation Council, Melbourne (Australia)); Walker, P.J. (New South Wales Soil Conservation Service, Cobar (Australia)); Purdie, R. (Queensland Dept. of Primary Industries, Indooroopilly (Australia). Botany Branch) ...
Australian rangeland journal,
(1980), Letnik:
2, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Small trees of 2 eucalypts with different bark characteristics were subjected to nine experimental fires of different intensities in field plots. One species, the stringybarked E. macrorhyncha, had ...dry, dead, fibrous, furrowed outer bark which burned during fire. The other species, the gumbarked E. rossii, had smooth, moist, live bark none of which burned but part of which was lost through decortication during the next 12 months. Bark losses for both species varied but tended to rise steeply as measures of fuel and fire intensity increased, before reaching plateaus where losses were 5 mm in thickness for the gumbarked species and 8-9 mm for the stringybarked species at 55 and 120 cm above ground. The measured losses in bark thickness were not directly comparable because of the different methods of measurement used. Charred stringybark was less combustible than uncharred stringybark. Although all trees survived the experimental fires, their future will depend on the degree of cambial death in successive fires and the rates of recovery of bark thicknesses between fires.
