SITE REQUIREMENTS OF EUCALYPTS

SITE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCIAL EUCALYPTUS

AND CORYMBIA SPECIES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Martin Herbert
Fractal Forest, P O Box 3075, Assagay 3624, South Africa
email: martinh@fractalforest.net

INTRODUCTION

Afforestation in southern Africa is practised in a sub-continent of generally low to very low rainfall.
Those regions where sufficient precipitation falls to ensure the survival and vigorous growth of
plantations are largely confined to a long and discontinuous belt along the eastern sea-board and
adjacent escarpment, as well as portions of the adjoining highland interior. This encompasses a very
wide range of growing conditions with regard to latitude, altitude, climate, lithology, soils,
topography and biotic factors. Accordingly, land holdings can only be optimally and sustainably
managed by uniquely integrating layers of detailed site data for individual management operations.

The great diversity of site conditions and the presence of forestry into more marginal areas are the
main reasons for the employment of a number of commercial Eucalyptus and Corymbia species as
well as clonal hybrids within the industry. In addition, timber properties may be strongly influenced
by genotype-site interactions, which is of major importance for an industry focused on both quality
than quantity. As a result, sites need to be carefully evaluated for site-species/genotype matching. This
in turn requires a detailed geographic information system for a range of site factors at a scale of
approximately 1: 10 000 (i.e. compartment level). This section presents the optimum requirements of
the principal commercial Eucalyptus and Corymbia species for such parameters.

SITE FACTORS

When investigating the site’s ability to support tree growth, there are three main criteria for
consideration, viz. climate, soils/lithology and pests/diseases. These constitute a dynamic set of
interacting and partly compensating factors, and must thus be jointly considered and evaluated. For
example, the importance of soils increases as precipitation decreases, and the impacts of pests and
diseases tend to become more pronounced as tree growing conditions become more marginal.

The most important climatic factor is ambient air temperature, as each genotype has a particular
optimum range of physiological activity for fast and continuous growth, while resistance to frost/snow
and diseases is also temperature related. Within a region, the thermic regime may be inferred from
mean annual temperature (MAT), but it is also important to take note of the full range of expected
mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, particularly those of January and July
respectively. Increasing warmth promotes tree physiological activity but, in conjunction with high
humidity, also susceptibility to disease; conversely winter coldness not only increases the risks of
frost and/or snow damage, but also markedly reduces seasonal growth rates, unless species are
specifically adapted to these conditions. Temperature conditions per production unit can be estimated
using local models based on altitude, latitude and aspect, but, due to global climate change, only
temperature recent data from the past 15 – 20 years should be considered. In general, temperatures
decrease with altitude, exposure and latitude, and on southern as opposed to northern slopes.

Where a tree species or genotype is planted in a suitable thermic regime, mean annual precipitation
(MAP) largely determines its growth rate. Within a region, MAP not only defines the expected
amount of precipitation, but also infers its monthly distribution. The summer rainfall areas of southern
Africa are all characterised by a marked summer peak in precipitation with relatively dry winters of
between 10 and 40 mm precipitation only per month. A decrease in MAP is also associated with a
drier winter; thus MAP may be used as a basis for estimating the trees water requirements, as seasonal
rainfall distributions are relatively similar. The MAP limits for the summer rainfall regions listed in

Page 1
 SITE REQUIREMENTS OF EUCALYPTS

Table 1 vary between 657 and 1 298 mm, depending on MAT (more evapotranspiration required) and
the demand for water by the different species (fast-growing and drought-sensitive species require
more water than low-yielding and drought-hardy species). The Cape winter and constant rainfall
regions need to be considered somewhat differently, as the high winter precipitation occurs outside
during the period of greatest evaporative demand (summer). MAP per production unit can be broadly
estimated using models based on altitude, latitude and/or coastal distance, with local adjustments
made according to aspect and/or relative topographic position (rain shadows); however, only data
from the most recent 30 – 35 years should be used, due to shifts in precipitation patterns. In general,
MAP increase with coastal proximity, altitude and on slopes facing orographic events.

The restricted distribution of extensive regions of high rainfall in southern Africa results in the use of
a large number of species with differing water requirements and drought tolerances. As the demand
for water increases with temperature, MAP alone cannot be used in site-species matching; thus classes
of effective precipitation (EP) have been developed, which may be used to meaningfully compare the
water demands of trees relative to MAT (see Table 1). It is important to note that although the
absolute value of MAP may not always be known at compartment level to the nearest millimetre,
Table 1 reflects the importance of small differences in MAP on tree growth, and the site-specificity
with which successful forestry operations need to be managed. The minimum EP class required by a
species will rise or fall as available soil water holding capacity decreases or increases respectively.

TABLE 1. Minimum MAP (mm) requirements per Effective Precipitation Class and MAT
MAT Effective Precipitation Class
(°C) Very low Low Moderate High Very high Extra high Ultra high Moist
13.0 657 689 722 754 787 819 852 884
13.5 675 709 743 776 810 844 878 911
14.0 693 728 763 798 833 868 903 938
14.5 711 747 783 819 856 892 928 964
15.0 728 765 803 840 878 915 953 990
15.5 744 783 822 860 899 938 977 1 015
16.0 760 800 840 880 920 960 1 000 1 040
16.5 776 817 858 899 941 982 1 023 1 064
17.0 791 833 876 918 961 1 003 1 046 1 088
17.5 805 849 893 936 980 1 024 1 068 1 111
18.0 819 864 909 954 999 1 044 1 089 1 134
18.5 833 879 925 971 1 018 1 064 1 110 1 156
19.0 846 893 941 988 1 036 1 083 1 131 1 178
19.5 858 907 956 1 004 1 053 1 102 1 151 1 199
20.0 870 920 970 1 020 1 070 1 120 1 170 1 220
20.5 882 933 984 1 035 1 087 1 138 1 189 1 240
21.0 893 945 998 1 050 1 103 1 155 1 208 1 260
21.5 903 957 1 011 1 064 1 118 1 172 1 226 1 279
22.0 913 968 1023 1 078 1 133 1 188 1 243 1 298

Edaphic factors for consideration include soil effective rooting depth, texture, structure, drainage,
fertility, stones and lithology. The effective rooting depth (ERD) of soils is defined as the horizon
depth at which meaningful root penetration and/or activity ceases. Such limitations include
hard/compacted rock, dense stone-lines, excessive soil firmness/hardness caused by strong structure
or massiveness, and poorly-drained or water-logged horizons. Soil constitutes the medium for the
physiological activity of roots, including nutrient and water uptake and respiration. These factors are
strongly influenced by soil texture, structure and clay type. Texture allows the total available moisture
(TAM) of trees to be estimated (Schulze, Huston and Cass, 1985), and these relationships have been
used to compare the ERDs of the main textural classes of soils (see Table 2). Specific information on
tree rooting conditions requires intensive field surveys (1: 10 000 scale) and a spatial data base

Page 2
 SITE REQUIREMENTS OF EUCALYPTS

capable of detailing and interpreting the entire rooting profile (soil, saprolite and lithology).

Table 2 ranks soil depths per textural class in terms of TAM (-10kPa); it is divided into classes of
equivalent soil depth (ESD) from very shallow to unrestricted. Tree species have been rated in terms
of their minimum ESD requirements, the faster-growing and more site-demanding requiring deep to
very deep ESD classes and vice versa. Table 2 shows that the coarser textured soils demand a greater
ERD to store an equivalent quantity of water. As with the MAP limits for each precipitation class in
Table 1, the relatively small differences in ERD between the finer textured soils underline the large
differences in the site’s ability to store water and act as a buffering system against variation in rainfall
amounts and distribution. The clay loam soil texture class has been used as a reference texture for the
earlier general ERD guidelines used in site-species matching (Schönau and Grey, 1987).

TABLE 2. Minimum ERD(cm) limits per ESD Class as influenced by soil texture
Equivalent Soil Depth Class
Soil textural class Very Shallow Moderate Deep Very Extra Ultra Un-
shallow deep deep deep restricted
Silt 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Silty clay 21 32 43 53 64 75 85 96
Silty clay loam 21 32 43 53 64 75 85 96
Clay 24 36 48 60 73 85 97 109
Silt loam 26 39 52 64 77 90 103 116
Clay loam 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135
Loam 33 49 65 81 98 114 130 147
Sandy clay 37 56 74 93 112 130 148 167
Sandy clay loam 41 62 82 103 123 144 165 185
Sandy loam 46 69 92 115 139 162 185 208
Loamy sand 62 93 124 155 185 216 247 278
Sand 69 104 139 173 208 243 278 313
Pure sand 85 127 170 213 255 298 340 382
Note 1: Soils with an ERD <30cm must be underlain by fissured rock and well-weathered saprolite. Note 2: Increase ERD
by 1/3 for weak to moderately fine structured soils, and by 2/3 for moderately to strongly (< coarse) structured soils

Table 2 applies to apedal to weakly structured soils only; its ERD limits need to be adapted for more
structured soils, as defined in the South African soil classification system (Soil Classification
Working Group, 1991). The greater the degree of structure is, the less the effective soil volume
available for root colonisation. Thus sub-angular/fine structure requires an additional ERD of 33%
compared to apedal soils, while this figure is increased to an additional 67% for angular/medium to
coarse structured soils. In using Table 2 it is important to note that no soil should have an ERD less
than 30cm, with the exception that it is underlain by strongly weathered and fissured rock or saprolite,
and that it does not occur in strongly water-shedding (convex) landscape positions (very drought-
prone). Furthermore, such shallow soils are not suitable for species with large and highly active
crowns, nor in aspects exposed to strong winds (high risk of wind-throw).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although a number of important site factors are identified in this section, it is important to view them
holistically within an ecosystem (Herbert, 1993). With regard to the key components of MAT, MAP
and ESD, it is significant to note that they have been optimised so as to largely account for the other
site factors (except for wind exposure and fire damage). They should not be viewed in isolation, and
by moving beyond the limits set in Table 3, it will generally be found that acute problems will arise
concerning tree stress/die-back/mortality, poor yields and disease. However, where the minimum soil
depth is marginal for a particular species, this may be off-set by an increase in MAP above the
minimum recommended. A convenient “rule of thumb” is to compensate a lowering of ESD of one
class by increasing the EP by one class (more if the winter drought is highly pronounced). Similarly,

Page 3
 SITE REQUIREMENTS OF EUCALYPTS

MAP may be relaxed somewhat in climes with a moderate to high effective precipitation, if the site is
in a water accumulating landscape position (foot slope) and/or the soils are deep and underlain by a
well-drained and friable sub-stratum. Such off-sets are also required in extending into or slightly
beyond the warmer limits for MAT, where a more than adequate summer water supply may help
compensate for a (periodically) over-warm site.

Recommendations for the minimum commercial site requirements of tree species are given in Table 3.
It should be noted that these refer to those site conditions under which each species grows at its
relative best. Although a species may be grown outside of these conditions, growth will taper off
strongly and the risk of stand failure and/or poor yields increases exponentially. Categories per key
site factor in Table 3 are described as follows:

Effective precipitation (EP):
Frost resistance:
Snow resistance:
Equivalent soil depth (ESD):
Soil drainage status (SDS):
Very low (VL), low (L), moderate (M), high (H), very high (VH),
extra high (EH)
Nil (N), light (L), moderate (M), heavy (H), severe (S)
Nil (N), light (L), moderate (M), heavy (H), severe (S)
Very shallow (VS), shallow (S), moderate (M), deep (D)
Poor (P), moderate (M), imperfect (I), good (G), very good (VG)

Table 3 also includes a number of clonal hybrids of E. grandis with E. camaldulensis, E.

longirostrata, E. nitens and E. urophylla. While particular individual genotypes may be highly site
specific, many are “generalists” designed to exploit a range of site conditions within a forestry zone.
The site requirements of the four hybrid groups listed in Table 3 are thus by definition broad, and
apply only to local genotypes developed in southern Africa. The guidelines for suitable site conditions
are provided mainly to indicate each groups potential for inclusion in planting programmes, but for
optimum results, production units will still need to be individually matched with specific genotypes.

REFERENCES

Herbert, M.A. (1993). Site requirements of exotic hardwood species, ICFR Bulletin Series 2/93.

Schönau, A.P.G., and Grey, D.C. (1987). Site requirements of exotic tree species, In: Forestry
Handbook, Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, p. 82-94.

Schulze, R.E., Huston, J.L., and Cass. A. (1985). Hydrological characteristics and properties of
soils in southern Africa, Water SA, Vol.11, No.3, p.129-136.

Soil Classification Working Group (1991). Soil classification: A taxonomic system for South
Africa, Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15, Pretoria..

Webb, D.B., Wood, P.J., and Smith, J. (1980). A guide to species selection for tropical and sub-
tropical plantations. Tropical Forestry Papers 15, Comm. For. Inst., Oxford. pp.342.

Page 4
 SITE REQUIREMENTS OF EUCALYPTS

TABLE 3. Key site requirements of commercial Eucalyptus and Corymbia species and clonal hybrids
Species MAT (°C) range Mean Jan. EP 1 Frost Snow ESD 2 Soil Comments
max. temp. (°C) resistance resistance drainage
Min. Max.
C. henryi 19.0 22.5 31.5 L N N M M Stem kino pockets and exudation may occur; rapid loss of vigour on
cooler sites (< 19 °C); “new” species with good breeding potential.
E. badjensis 14.5 17.0 26.5 M H M S G Moderate susceptibility to snout beetle; low susceptibility to
Phytophthora, but increases on warmer sites; tolerates minor
hydromorphy only.
E. benthamii 14.5 18.0 26.0 L S L M I-M Low susceptibility to snout beetle; competitive on rocky/stony, frosty
and/or high wind-chill sites.
E. dunnii 15.0 18.0 27.5 M H L S M High susceptibility to snout beetle; competitive on rocky/stony sites
and/or base rich lithologies; prefers cooler climes; vigorous root system.
E. elata 15.0 18.0 27.0 M M L-M D G High susceptibility to termites; low susceptibility to snout beetle; avoid
sites underlain by un-weathered rock; tolerates minor hydromorphy only.
E. grandis 16.5 20.5 29.0 H N N M I Highly susceptible to Cryphonectria and Coniothyrium cankers on hot
and humid sites – NB temperature limits; sensitive to termites.
E. longirostrata 19.5 23.0 32.0 VL N N S M-P High drought and disease resistance; rapid loss of vigour on cooler sites (<
19.5 °C); “new” species with good breeding and hybrid potential.
E. macarthurii 14.0 18.0 26.0 L S L S I-M Moderate susceptibility to snout beetle; Botryosphaeria canker
problematic on very droughty sites.
E. nitens 13.5 15.5 24.5 VH S H D VG Juvenile stage highly susceptible to Mycosphaerella leaf blotch on warm
(≥ 16 °C) sites; Botryosphaeria and Endothia cankers on off-sites; highly
susceptible to termites; avoid droughty sites.
E. saligna 15.5 19.0 28.0 M L L M I-M Sensitive to termites; somewhat more cold and drought tolerant than E.
grandis.
E. smithii 15.0 17.5 26.5 H M L-M M VG Highly sensitive to Phytophthora and Pythium, especially on warmer sites
(> 17.5 °C); avoid all hydromorphy, especially on mudstone, siltstone and
shale sediments; avoid droughty sites.
Eucalypt hybrids
E. grandis x camaldulensis 18.0 22.0 31.0 L - M L N VS - M I-M Broad site adaptability; limited adult crown and girth development;
relatively modest yields, especially on well-watered sites.
E. grandis x longirostrata 20.0 23.0 32.5 VL - L N N VS - M M-P Broad site adaptability and competitiveness; good disease resistance;
requires further genotype–site matching development.
E. grandis x nitens 15.0 17.5 27.0 H - VH H M M-D VG - I Very high leaf area index potential; highly competitive on recommended
sites; tip die-back on droughty sites; avoid severe frost pockets; avoid high
wind-chill.
E. grandis x urophylla 19.0 22.5 31.5 H - EH N N S-D I-M Good disease resistance and competitive on well-watered sites; less
competitive on droughty sites.
1 2
EP: Effective precipitation (see Table 1) . ESD: Equivalent soil depth (see Table 2).

Page 5