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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2016, 08:30 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,173,154 times
Reputation: 4350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Not surprised Nevada is last in the slightest. That place is more deserted than... most deserts

However I am kinda surprised that the Plains states do so poorly here. I know plains aren't technically supposed to have trees but the Plains states should be able to foster better environments than Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and even Alaska for trees. I mean except for tornadoes, but they aren't that common.
I don't know the history but I believe it has something to do with wildfires. Not a great deal of water or rainfall in the landlocked plains states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2016, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Floribama
15,104 posts, read 31,467,926 times
Reputation: 13906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
Not surprised Nevada is last in the slightest. That place is more deserted than... most deserts

However I am kinda surprised that the Plains states do so poorly here. I know plains aren't technically supposed to have trees but the Plains states should be able to foster better environments than Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and even Alaska for trees. I mean except for tornadoes, but they aren't that common.
Much of it was Bur oak savanna, but most of that was cleared for agriculture, just like most of the Longleaf pine forest here in the South was destroyed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_savanna#
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 08:32 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,173,154 times
Reputation: 4350
Texas' low number surprises me. Much of the state is plains and desert, but it also has some of the lushest regions in the entire country that I was sure would count for something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,827 posts, read 9,461,353 times
Reputation: 6186
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Trees do will if planted on the plains. It is rather odd that there aren't more.
Most of the Plains is farmland so absent of trees. The few towns and cities you do see are usually marked by a bunch of trees. You see the trees from the distance before you see the town...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
10,827 posts, read 9,461,353 times
Reputation: 6186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Texas' low number surprises me. Much of the state is plains and desert, but it also has some of the lushest regions in the entire country that I was sure would count for something.
Not to me. The Panhandle is virtually free of trees, although there are lots of green grasses. The Gulf Coastal Plain has very few trees and west of San Antonio is virtually treeless past the Hill Country. Drive out through Midland/Odessa or Fort Stockton some time and you'll see what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 09:10 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,173,154 times
Reputation: 4350
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
Not to me. The Panhandle is virtually free of trees, although there are lots of green grasses. The Gulf Coastal Plain has very few trees and west of San Antonio is virtually treeless past the Hill Country. Drive out through Midland/Odessa or Fort Stockton some time and you'll see what I mean.
I'm well aware of what you're talking about. What I'm sayng is I still didn't expect the percentage to be so low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 09:35 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,141 posts, read 9,927,686 times
Reputation: 6429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Texas' low number surprises me. Much of the state is plains and desert, but it also has some of the lushest regions in the entire country that I was sure would count for something.
I agree with you, 7% does seem kind of low for Texas. That is because the US Dept of Agriculture is looking at timberland. I forget the exact definition of timberland but I think it has something to do with trees that can be harvested. So they actually undercount forests in some states.

This website for Texas (Texas Almanac) Forest Resources | Texas Almanac , says that Texas is 38% forested. Now that number seems too high! Take a look at a satellite view of Texas to see what I mean. Eastern Texas is a mix of farmlands and real forests. Other parts of Texas have open grasslands with trees mixed in with them - that is not necessarily forests and should not be counted as such.


So to make a long story short, I think the real number for Texas is definitely higher then 7% but lower then 38%. 15% to 20% or so seems reasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 09:57 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Are there stats for forestland that includes non-timberland?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 11:12 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 4,173,154 times
Reputation: 4350
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I agree with you, 7% does seem kind of low for Texas. That is because the US Dept of Agriculture is looking at timberland. I forget the exact definition of timberland but I think it has something to do with trees that can be harvested. So they actually undercount forests in some states.

This website for Texas (Texas Almanac) Forest Resources | Texas Almanac , says that Texas is 38% forested. Now that number seems too high! Take a look at a satellite view of Texas to see what I mean. Eastern Texas is a mix of farmlands and real forests. Other parts of Texas have open grasslands with trees mixed in with them - that is not necessarily forests and should not be counted as such.


So to make a long story short, I think the real number for Texas is definitely higher then 7% but lower then 38%. 15% to 20% or so seems reasonable.
The trees get much taller in East Texas, but actually forests can be found as far west as San Antonio, that I've seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2016, 11:32 AM
 
159 posts, read 169,595 times
Reputation: 105
Maine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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