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.
I think if flowers usually bloom through the winter then it’s more than temperate. I don’t know how I feel about the “subtropical” term applied to overall cool climates, but it seems like there should be a term for places with lots of broadleaf evergreen trees and winter flowers.
Actually it doesn't define winter climate, but overall climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
My contention, is that subtropical Is a label more appropriate for the biome/environment of a place, rather than the climate - places with mild winters/cool summers can have a subtropical environment, as do places with mild winters/warm summers.
If you have in mind the south island of your country i will disagree. It's similar to some areas of the Valdivian rainforest. Here we have to recognize that lush doesn't equal subtropical. It's a narrow distinction, but a very important one. So, those forests may look subtropical in the surface, but when you do a deep examination, there are noticeable differences: temperate rainforests can be very lushy, but still they have
characteristics that set them apart from classic subtropical/tropical jungles. And that's why, for instance, the Valdivian forest is often labeled as a "cold jungle". That definition acknowledges the "jungle alike" appearance, but also states the inherent coldness factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neptunepenguins
I've seen places with mean minimums of -28C/-18F with dominant deciduous temperate vegetation. Then I've seen places with mean minimums of -15C/5F with a mixed forest hemiboreal vegetation.
What are the characteristics of a subtropical forest? I generally have a hard time identifying subtropical forest vs a temperate one. Yes some forests are dominated by evergreen broadleaf trees, but often times it's still deciduous forests. I know that generally subtropical forests will have more biodiversity but sometimes that can be hard to see with just your eyes, especially since not all species will be found within your vicinity. Do subtropical forests generally have more undergrowth than temperate forests? I would assume that stronger sun would at least in theory allow more undergrowth under the shade of trees, but then that would mean temperate forests at higher altitudes in southern regions will also have more undergrowth too. Or am I missing something?
If you have in mind the south island of your country i will disagree. It's similar to some areas of the Valdivian rainforest. Here we have to recognize that lush doesn't equal subtropical. It's a narrow distinction, but a very important one. So, those forests may look subtropical in the surface, but when you do a deep examination, there are noticeable differences: temperate rainforests can be very lushy, but still they have
characteristics that set them apart from classic subtropical/tropical jungles. And that's why, for instance, the Valdivian forest is often labeled as a "cold jungle". That definition acknowledges the "jungle alike" appearance, but also states the inherent coldness factor.
It's not a question of lushness, or looks, but a lessening of seaonality - when species of plants flower during the colder months, or are spring deciduous, or the colder months herald the arrival of new insect/ bird species, then an environment is more subtropical than one that lacks those features.
The South Island isn't a single biome. The upper coastal South is much the same as the North - winter fruit such as Guavas, passionfruit, or avocado, aren't something found in Dunedin.
Would you rate "subtropicalness" on a scale? How does subtropicalness differ from hardiness zone then?
Vancouver is an 8b hardiness zone and so is Dallas, TX. Do they have the same level of "subtropicalness" on a scale?
I wouldn't apply a numerical scale, rather just a more/less one.
Hardiness zones are theoretical, and while they are useful, don't always correlate well with what actually grows well in a place - the Scilly Isles might have a higher hardiness zone than my area, but my area has a more subtropical environment. Likewise, I suspect that Dallas would have a greater range of winter flowering plants, greater insect variety etc, than Vancouver.
I wouldn't apply a numerical scale, rather just a more/less one.
Hardiness zones are theoretical, and while they are useful, don't always correlate well with what actually grows well in a place - the Scilly Isles might have a higher hardiness zone than my area, but my area has a more subtropical environment. Likewise, I suspect that Dallas would have a greater range of winter flowering plants, greater insect variety etc, than Vancouver.
I see what you are saying and I agree with both of your examples but how do you measure it is what I am wondering. Can "subtropicalness" according to you be quantified if it can be more/less?
I see what you are saying and I agree with both of your examples but how do you measure it is what I am wondering. Can "subtropicalness" according to you be quantified if it can be more/less?
It's easy in a place like NZ, because it's a visibly obvious natural progression within a similar context- Motueka looks different to Invercargill, and Auckland looks different Motueka etc.
I guess for between completely different regions of the world, with different flora and fauna, indicator species could be used -- bees and citrus for example, have been introduced to any climate that can sustain then. Measuring the level of activity/growth of those in the colder months, would be indicative of a lessening of seasonality within environments.
It's not a question of lushness, or looks, but a lessening of seaonality - when species of plants flower during the colder months, or are spring deciduous, or the colder months herald the arrival of new insect/ bird species, then an environment is more subtropical than one that lacks those features.
The South Island isn't a single biome. The upper coastal South is much the same as the North - winter fruit such as Guavas, passionfruit, or avocado, aren't something found in Dunedin.
Lushness doesn't hurt in winter to my eyes. I don't like brown lifeless landscapes in winter.
It's easy in a place like NZ, because it's a visibly obvious natural progression within a similar context- Motueka looks different to Invercargill, and Auckland looks different Motueka etc.
I guess for between completely different regions of the world, with different flora and fauna, indicator species could be used -- bees and citrus for example, have been introduced to any climate that can sustain then. Measuring the level of activity/growth of those in the colder months, would be indicative of a lessening of seasonality within environments.
As you saw Bournemouth in England is lush and evergreen in winter, wouldn't that suggest subtropical features, even if say citrus crops don't do well there?
I don't think it was ever up for debate that vegetation defines winter climate. The problem has always been that it fails to define summer climate.
Of course not. A brief summer, however hot, does not melt permafrost.
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.
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.
