U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2014, 11:07 PM
 
Location: A subtropical paradise
2,069 posts, read 2,199,033 times
Reputation: 1329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy View Post
I agree with a lot of what you said, but the East is mostly temperate deciduous forest.

http://biologycorner.com/resources/biome_map_key.gif
https://smartsite.ucdavis.edu/access...eek1/biome.jpg

Only far eastern Texas and Oklahoma are part of the East, if that. The Badlands are in the West.
No offense, but these just aren't very good maps. The first map is way off; it not only has the Coastal South, including the ENTIRE state of Florida, marked as deciduous forest, it even has places all the way down in Central America marked as deciduous forest, when we all know that such areas have evergreen broadleaf forests. Also, it has coastal California marked as desert (when it is coastal Chapparal), and even coastal Texas marked as desert(the complete opposite of the actual humid climate present on the coastline). The second map atleast has the boundaries for a lot of the biomes correct, but it still seems quite old and outdated.

These maps do not show deciduous forest as dominating the East:
http://dendro.cnre.vt.edu/dendrology/map/florista.jpg
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt..._provinces.gif
(This is the pdf that corresponds with the map, and will aid you in identifying each of the biomes listed:
http://www.biosat.net/Pdf/Glossary/E...scriptions.pdf)
(This is the website that corresponds with the map incase any more information is needed:
Ecosystem Provinces)


Lots of maps incorrectly label the Southeast as having a temperate deciduous forest, but in reality, the vegetation of the Southeast, especially in the coastal portion ranging from Virginia to Florida, then west to Texas, is that of subtropical broadleaf forest, or laurel forest, at its pristine, climax state, not too dissimilar to what is seen in Southern Japan:

Laurel forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Description of the Ecoregions of the United States - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States. Forest Service - Google Books

Quote:
A word about the vegetation of the coastal Southeastern United States may prevent some misunderstanding. On forest maps of the United States and on numerous maps of world vegetation, this coastal zone is shown as having needleleaf evergreen or coniferous forest. It is true that sandy uplands have forests of loblolly and slash pine, and that baldcypress is a dominant tree in swamps; but such vegetation represents either xerophytic and hydrophytic forms in excessively dry or wet habitats, or second-growth forest following fire and deforestation. The climax vegetation of mesophytic habitats is the evergreen-oak and magnolia forest. - from the Google Book.
So no, the East is not mostly deciduous forest; the Southeast makes up a large portion of the East, and it has evergreen, subtropical forests. In addition, you have the Great Plains of the Midwest, with the rugged geography, and canyons and all, the high Appalachian mountains, the vast Great Lakes, and the deserts, and mountains of Texas, if the state is included.



With that out of the way, I think what this thread needs is an establishment of what is considered the East, and what is considered the West. Where are the boundary lines? The Mississippi River? Then many swamps and marshes, as well as forests, of Louisiana, and coastal Texas would become part of the West. The Rockies? Then the Badlands of South Dakota, and the many deserts, and canyons found in Texas would then be part of the East.

 
Old 09-28-2014, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Old Orchard Beach,Maine
53 posts, read 23,337 times
Reputation: 100
The west is stunningly beautiful in many places,no doubt about that. However,in my VERY biased opinion,my home state of Maine is the most beautiful.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 12:14 PM
 
12,657 posts, read 10,501,376 times
Reputation: 17561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaineCat View Post
The west is stunningly beautiful in many places,no doubt about that. However,in my VERY biased opinion,my home state of Maine is the most beautiful.
Maine is very beautiful!
 
Old 09-28-2014, 01:18 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,614,876 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews View Post
Yes, a very small percentage of Oregon is lush. That does not mean it is the same as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, etc... You can't just decide for other people that the small portion of Oregon that is lush and green is enough that they are unreasonable to find the states out east more beautiful.
A "very small percentage" of Oregon is lush? Pretty much all of Western Oregon is lush forestland from the Cascades to the Pacific ocean(a lot of it is actually temperate rainforests)--and that's about 35% of the entire state. Western Oregon is about the size of New England without Maine or the entire state of South Carolin and the landscape is similarly lush in Washington to the north and in Northern California west of the Central Valley to the south--which is basically a distance like that of Maine to North Carolina. Things get drier to the east though there's a lot of pine woods in the many mountains ranges.

I could care less what people find beautiful and it's all subjective. Personally as I said earlier I find specific areas of the country beautiful not entire regions to begin with. But some of the ideas about what people think the entirity of the "West" or "East" is like on here is comical.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 01:51 PM
 
14,111 posts, read 22,756,342 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yn0hTnA View Post
No offense, but these just aren't very good maps. The first map is way off; it not only has the Coastal South, including the ENTIRE state of Florida, marked as deciduous forest, it even has places all the way down in Central America marked as deciduous forest, when we all know that such areas have evergreen broadleaf forests. Also, it has coastal California marked as desert (when it is coastal Chapparal), and even coastal Texas marked as desert(the complete opposite of the actual humid climate present on the coastline). The second map atleast has the boundaries for a lot of the biomes correct, but it still seems quite old and outdated.

These maps do not show deciduous forest as dominating the East:
http://dendro.cnre.vt.edu/dendrology/map/florista.jpg
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt..._provinces.gif
(This is the pdf that corresponds with the map, and will aid you in identifying each of the biomes listed:
http://www.biosat.net/Pdf/Glossary/E...scriptions.pdf)
(This is the website that corresponds with the map incase any more information is needed:
Ecosystem Provinces)


Lots of maps incorrectly label the Southeast as having a temperate deciduous forest, but in reality, the vegetation of the Southeast, especially in the coastal portion ranging from Virginia to Florida, then west to Texas, is that of subtropical broadleaf forest, or laurel forest, at its pristine, climax state, not too dissimilar to what is seen in Southern Japan:

Laurel forest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Description of the Ecoregions of the United States - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States. Forest Service - Google Books



So no, the East is not mostly deciduous forest; the Southeast makes up a large portion of the East, and it has evergreen, subtropical forests. In addition, you have the Great Plains of the Midwest, with the rugged geography, and canyons and all, the high Appalachian mountains, the vast Great Lakes, and the deserts, and mountains of Texas, if the state is included.



With that out of the way, I think what this thread needs is an establishment of what is considered the East, and what is considered the West. Where are the boundary lines? The Mississippi River? Then many swamps and marshes, as well as forests, of Louisiana, and coastal Texas would become part of the West. The Rockies? Then the Badlands of South Dakota, and the many deserts, and canyons found in Texas would then be part of the East.
The desert and mountainous regions of Texas are in West Texas, and there is absolutely no way West Texas is part of the Eastern US. The West starts hundreds of miles East of the Trans Pecos region of Texas.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: SC
8,792 posts, read 5,655,771 times
Reputation: 12805
The west has large patches of beauty surrounded by emptiness. The east has patches of blah surrounded by natural beauty.

However, other than Niagara falls, the views in the west however are far more dramatic.

This is based on a theory that green is more beautiful.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 10:17 PM
 
3,147 posts, read 2,941,028 times
Reputation: 1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
A "very small percentage" of Oregon is lush? Pretty much all of Western Oregon is lush forestland from the Cascades to the Pacific ocean(a lot of it is actually temperate rainforests)--and that's about 35% of the entire state. Western Oregon is about the size of New England without Maine or the entire state of South Carolin and the landscape is similarly lush in Washington to the north and in Northern California west of the Central Valley to the south--which is basically a distance like that of Maine to North Carolina. Things get drier to the east though there's a lot of pine woods in the many mountains ranges.

I could care less what people find beautiful and it's all subjective. Personally as I said earlier I find specific areas of the country beautiful not entire regions to begin with. But some of the ideas about what people think the entirity of the "West" or "East" is like on here is comical.


The only part of Oregon that is as lush as the forests in the South is the "Pacific Temperate Rain Forests", and that makes up FAR less than 35% of Oregon's land area.

Here is a map.

Map

Outside of that area, it is drier, mostly pine forests... and that is just in the western third of the state you are talking about, it gets even drier and less lush further east... for at least half of the state.

So, my comment that a small percentage of Oregon is lush is completely factual. Just because an area is forested does not make it "lush". Especially when almost all of that is drier pine forests.

The "lush" area of the west is not nearly as big in size as the lush area of the east.. which covers almost all of the south. Dry pine forests can not be considered as lush as temperate deciduous forests that get far more rain, have more fertile soil, and dense undergrowth.

If you are saying that just as much of the west is green and lush as the eastern half of the country, you will find that most people disagree with you.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 11:04 PM
 
1,770 posts, read 1,206,502 times
Reputation: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews View Post
The only part of Oregon that is as lush as the forests in the South is the "Pacific Temperate Rain Forests", and that makes up FAR less than 35% of Oregon's land area.

Here is a map.

Map

Outside of that area, it is drier, mostly pine forests... and that is just in the western third of the state you are talking about, it gets even drier and less lush further east... for at least half of the state.

So, my comment that a small percentage of Oregon is lush is completely factual. Just because an area is forested does not make it "lush". Especially when almost all of that is drier pine forests.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/us_precip.gif

This proves you're wrong. There is no debating it. You show a map of rainforests which are much lusher than anything in the East. Your map is irrelevant.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 11:09 PM
 
3,147 posts, read 2,941,028 times
Reputation: 1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaskwhy View Post
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpn/us_precip.gif

This proves you're wrong. There is no debating it. You show a map of rainforests which are much lusher than anything in the East. Your map is irrelevant.
No, you are wrong.

My claim was that a small percentage of Oregon is lush in comparison to the South. That statement is wholly correct and your map does not even address what I said, let alone prove it wrong.

Your map is irrelevant. Lush does not mean "highest rainfall". There are more factors than the amount of water, and it doesn't take the "highest rainfall" to be lush.

If anything, you proved me completely right in saying that a small percentage of Oregon is as lush as the south. A heavy majority of Oregon in the map you provided is yellow, orange, and red.

So, even if your assumption that high rainfall is directly equal to how lush an area is, you proved me right that a great majority of Oregon can not be considered lush.


Thanks for discrediting yourself again.
 
Old 09-28-2014, 11:24 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,614,876 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews View Post
The only part of Oregon that is as lush as the forests in the South is the "Pacific Temperate Rain Forests", and that makes up FAR less than 35% of Oregon's land area.

Here is a map.

Map

Outside of that area, it is drier, mostly pine forests... and that is just in the western third of the state you are talking about, it gets even drier and less lush further east... for at least half of the state.

So, my comment that a small percentage of Oregon is lush is completely factual. Just because an area is forested does not make it "lush". Especially when almost all of that is drier pine forests.
I don't know how familiar you or with Oregon--but drier and Western Oregon is an oxymoron except in a few valleys of Southern Oregon. The woods of western Oregon and Washington are covered in lush vegetation--ferns and flowering plants all over the damn wet expanse of it. It's not a "small percentage" by any means, and the rainforests along the coast are denser with vegetation than practically anywhere in the country including the South.

Quote:
The "lush" area of the west is not nearly as big in size as the lush area of the east.. which covers almost all of the south. Dry pine forests can not be considered as lush as temperate deciduous forests that get far more rain, have more fertile soil, and dense undergrowth.

If you are saying that just as much of the west is green and lush as the eastern half of the country, you will find that most people disagree with you.
I never said anywhere that the entire expanse of the West was as "green and lush" as the East(where's the magic line we're dividing this anyhow--Great Plains?). How "lush" the South is doesn't matter to me, when I have driven across the Deep South plenty of times--and outside of the mountains and coast the scenery is often repetive pine forests stretching across a fairly boring flat landscape that can be as monotonous as crossing the Great Plains or emptier stetches of Nevada deserts. The nice thing about places like the Pacific Northwest of California is that we've got more variety in scenery and ecosystems within a few hours drive than entire other regions of the country. And I'll say again, I find plenty of places outside the West to be beautiful(and there's plenty that are fairly boring)--but I can appreciate different places for different reasons--deserts can be just as beautiful to me as an average pastoral landscape of green hills and woods are whatever...

Last edited by Deezus; 09-28-2014 at 11:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top