Experimentation is fine if it is based on understanding the peculiar aspects of what ever plant we are dealing with. When it comes to Australian native Proteaceae plants there are unique considerations that need to be taken into account. Once we have an understanding of these characteristics then by all means we can take advantage of them. Experimenting blindly is not nearly as constructive. Australian Proteaceae plants are sensitive to Phosphorous to varying degrees. BUT it all makes sense if we are aware of what their original environment was. Proteaceae from the skeletal sandstone soils that have always been very low in nutrients, especially phosphorous, have over thousands of years, developed special adaptions known as proteiod roots. They are noticeably different. (I shall spare you further details about Proteiod roots, but a Google might give you more.) Plants developed these in order to maximise the surface root area so they can absorb the scarce nutrients that may be present in these sandstone derived soils. However in the more nutrient rich rainforest zones it is quite possible that Proteaceae are more tolerant of nutrients and maybe even Phosphorous. I always err on the side of avoiding common fertilisers with high rates of phosphorous. Even chook poo can cause problems, although I do give my rainforest plants a dose of Dynamic Lifter once a year. For example, I find Banksia ericifolia to be very sensitive while some Grevilleas are a bit more tolerant. As for your last remark Nathan I assume it is a joke. Anyone being wrong, should not inferr anyone is not wanted.

Hi Laura, OK, where do we start ? - a lot will depend on your current location : Sydney has different conditions to Nowra, or Yass, or ... - when you have established your baseline re soil and water (how much, and when), you can begin looking at different species. - if you have access to a local chapter of the SGAP, they should be able to recommend plants that are endemic to your area : these will often be the best choices - as a general rule, there are certain species which do well along the east coast, assuming that you dont have problems with heavy frost. My personal picks are: Elaeocarpus Reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) Syzygium Australe (Creek Cherry etc) Melaleuca 'Revolution Gold' and 'Revolution Green' Xanthostemon Chrysanthus (Golden Penda) Harpullia pendula (Tulipwood) Low shrubs such as grevillea and banksia for shelter The list goes on and on, but you really need to check with local gardeners and nurseries to see what works best in your neck of the woods. Good luck, Artie

I'll second Mallee's suggestion of Clematis, especially microphylla. I have a two-year-old one which would cover a stump that size well but not overflow too much. It's a delicious froth of white flowers for quite a long time in spring, and is good looking and sun-hardy even when not in flower. I haven't succeeded in getting fertile seeds. Wish I'd bought multiples of the plant when I had the chance, as I haven't seen it for sale since. It's the Crows Nest Shire Council not the Toowoomba one which sells local natives, Artie. I wonder whether any of your surrounding councils would be a source? In Crows Nest's case, the nursery is a by-product of an active revegetation programme, and largely the result of the work of one particular person who has had the push to keep it going. Would you be able to get hold of local plants by getting into conversations with people doing revegetation? Landcare and Greening Australia might be starting points? Here, there are two really good sources of local natives, but they both need to be telephoned in advance, as there doesn't seem to be a full-time income in running that kind of nursery. The more commercial nurseries quote lack of demand, but also say that they don't get these plants in because suppliers require them to get them in in large quantities, so even when the demand exists they won't fill it until it is a BIG demand. They also say they don't like dealing with small suppliers because they don't provide the pretty-coloured labels. Mass market economics rule, alas. Trish

California. In the 1850s Eucalyptus trees were introduced to California by Australians travelling to California during the California Gold Rush. Much of California has a similar climate to parts of Australia. By the early 1900s thousands of acres of eucalypts were planted with the encouragement of the state government. It was hoped that they would provide a renewable source of timber for construction and furniture making. They went on to note that the promise of eucalyptus in California was based on the old virgin forests of Australia. This was a mistake as the young trees being harvested in California could not compare in quality to the centuries-old eucalyptus timber of Australia. It reacted differently to harvest. The older trees didn't split or warp as the infant California crop did. There was a vast difference between the two, and this would doom the California eucalyptus industry.[11] One way in which the eucalyptus, mainly the blue gum E. globulus, proved valuable in California was in providing windbreaks for highways, orange groves, and other farms in the mostly treeless central part of the state. They are also admired as shade and ornamental trees in many cities and gardens. Eucalyptus forests in California have been criticised because they compete with native plants and do not support native animals. Fire is also a problem. The 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm which destroyed almost 3,000 homes and killed 25 people was partly fueled by large numbers of eucalypts in the area close to the houses.[12] In some parts of California eucalypt forests are being removed and native trees and plants restored. Individuals have also illegally destroyed some trees and are suspected of introducing insect pests from Australia which attack the trees.[13]