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.
Glad this two year old thread was revived by an insecure Houstonian so he could set us straight on Houston being better than Atlanta for loquats and guava.
I never disputed that title at all. Atlanta does indeed have more of its area under forest cover than Houston does.
However, Houston has far greater diversity in plant-life than Atlanta does; it can grow all those trees listed for Atlanta, and much more, including, but not limited to, many subtropical fruit tress (loquats, citrus, guava, etc), many varieties of palm (dates, washintonias, queens, etc), lots of broad-leaf evergreens (live oaks, southern magnolias, hollies, anacuas, camphor laurels, etc), and just more exotic plants in general (hibiscus, bougainvillea, ixora, jasmine, plumbago, etc). This diversity, vigor, and "exoticness" extends even into the natural environments around Houston as well, and largely stays green year-round. Forests in Houston are far lusher, and jungle-like than anything seen in Atlanta precisely for the aforementioned reasons. Lushness is more than just having lots of trees.
No "however"...Houston has a hotter climate than Atlanta, but there are also many trees that thrive here that don't live in Houston. Your arguments are a bit lightweight, and you're obviously trying to prove something here that isn't factual. Apparently you haven't seen some of the "jungle-like" areas of Atlanta...you can't just go by the street/neighborhood areas, but you would have to be familiar with the wild, forested areas that have a thick underbrush and are almost completely covered by the canopy. This may be true for Houston, but it's definitely true for Atlanta as well.
As you can see from the map, Atlanta is on the edges of a temperate rainforest (some northern counties are included in it) and has many of the characteristics of one, including great biodiversity. Rainforest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glad this two year old thread was revived by an insecure Houstonian so he could set us straight on Houston being better than Atlanta for loquats and guava.
I guess it's past time to ignore the attempts to depict Houston as green and lush. LOL!
When I was in college I studied Ecological Biodiversity in a geography program specifically researching plant specifies, because it is actually an excellent way to dive into the topic of how to research... -where-. (It's rather convenient plants do not move like animals do)
Houston is no slouch and it definitely is where different types of ecological environments come together, however several of those environments have low biodiversity... especially relatively speaking.
The biodiversity would be the diversity species in an area. The Southern Piedmont is going to be hard to beat. Our ecological landscape is a bit more continuous, but is extremely high in biodiversity. The number of different types of trees, vines, shrubs, moss, etc.. found in our forested landscape is through the roof.
Too many people here are throwing certain terms around rather haphazardly. If you want to argue that it is interesting you have plains, bayous, and pine forest coming together in one region... argue it. If you want to try to claim you find certain plants, subjectively, more exotic... argue it.
But this talk about various types of biodiversity is a big fail.
There are also a number of smaller arguments and assumptions that do not always hold true very well. For example... how green an area stays. Because of the biodiversity the Atlanta area has, this is a complicated argument. Large parts do lose their green in winter. We have species that shed their leaves, but the caveat is we have many species that do not as well. Much of how green a specific area in Winter has to do with the specific plants there. That is affected by everything from elevation, location relative to a slope (affecting sunlight and water runoff), to the timing is disturbance events (ie. fire, trees falling over from old age, extreme weather, etc...).
All that affects the specific type of species that end up in a single location at a certain time.
So this argument isn't always true and the irony is its a byproduct of the one topic people seem glued to for several pages.... biodiversity.
The other issue is this is about the way we live in the populated parts of the region... closer resembled by the urban area. Atlanta to a large degree has zoning that kept our tree canopy and we have more vegetation where we actually live with that diversity since we are comparing ideas on where people might want to live or not.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 17 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,503 posts, read 44,172,454 times
Reputation: 16915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pemgin
Glad this two year old thread was revived by an insecure Houstonian so he could set us straight on Houston being better than Atlanta for loquats and guava.
When I was in college I studied Ecological Biodiversity in a geography program specifically researching plant specifies, because it is actually an excellent way to dive into the topic of how to research... -where-. (It's rather convenient plants do not move like animals do)
Houston is no slouch and it definitely is where different types of ecological environments come together, however several of those environments have low biodiversity... especially relatively speaking.
The biodiversity would be the diversity species in an area. The Southern Piedmont is going to be hard to beat. Our ecological landscape is a bit more continuous, but is extremely high in biodiversity. The number of different types of trees, vines, shrubs, moss, etc.. found in our forested landscape is through the roof.
Too many people here are throwing certain terms around rather haphazardly. If you want to argue that it is interesting you have plains, bayous, and pine forest coming together in one region... argue it. If you want to try to claim you find certain plants, subjectively, more exotic... argue it.
But this talk about various types of biodiversity is a big fail.
There are also a number of smaller arguments and assumptions that do not always hold true very well. For example... how green an area stays. Because of the biodiversity the Atlanta area has, this is a complicated argument. Large parts do lose their green in winter. We have species that shed their leaves, but the caveat is we have many species that do not as well. Much of how green a specific area in Winter has to do with the specific plants there. That is affected by everything from elevation, location relative to a slope (affecting sunlight and water runoff), to the timing is disturbance events (ie. fire, trees falling over from old age, extreme weather, etc...).
All that affects the specific type of species that end up in a single location at a certain time.
So this argument isn't always true and the irony is its a byproduct of the one topic people seem glued to for several pages.... biodiversity.
The other issue is this is about the way we live in the populated parts of the region... closer resembled by the urban area. Atlanta to a large degree has zoning that kept our tree canopy and we have more vegetation where we actually live with that diversity since we are comparing ideas on where people might want to live or not.
Glad this two year old thread was revived by an insecure Houstonian so he could set us straight on Houston being better than Atlanta for loquats and guava.
An straight-up straw-man fallacy, and you know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel
No "however"...Houston has a hotter climate than Atlanta, but there are also many trees that thrive here that don't live in Houston. Your arguments are a bit lightweight, and you're obviously trying to prove something here that isn't factual. Apparently you haven't seen some of the "jungle-like" areas of Atlanta...you can't just go by the street/neighborhood areas, but you would have to be familiar with the wild, forested areas that have a thick underbrush and are almost completely covered by the canopy. This may be true for Houston, but it's definitely true for Atlanta as well.
As you can see from the map, Atlanta is on the edges of a temperate rainforest (some northern counties are included in it) and has many of the characteristics of one, including great biodiversity.
Some plants do have chill temp requirements that the climate of Houston is too warm to meet... but the general rule of thumb in regards to botany is that warmer climates lead to greater plant diversity. This fact is easily verifiable in this comparison of Houston vs Atlanta; Atlanta cannot cultivate as large of a variety of plants as Houston can. Those forests of Atlanta largely go brown during winter, whereas greater amounts of Houston's landscape keeps its green during winter, just like in the rest of the coastal Southeast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel
I guess it's past time to ignore the attempts to depict Houston as green and lush. LOL!
There is no need for any depiction; Houston is already green and lush, just like the rest of the coastal South.
I'm guessing you would say that Savannah, Charleston, Tampa, New Orleans, and Miami aren't green and lush as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
Houston is no slouch and it definitely is where different types of ecological environments come together, however several of those environments have low biodiversity... especially relatively speaking.
The biodiversity would be the diversity species in an area. The Southern Piedmont is going to be hard to beat. Our ecological landscape is a bit more continuous, but is extremely high in biodiversity. The number of different types of trees, vines, shrubs, moss, etc.. found in our forested landscape is through the roof.
Too many people here are throwing certain terms around rather haphazardly. If you want to argue that it is interesting you have plains, bayous, and pine forest coming together in one region... argue it. If you want to try to claim you find certain plants, subjectively, more exotic... argue it.
But this talk about various types of biodiversity is a big fail.
None of the different types of environments in Houston are lacking in biodiversity. Way off with that.
The environments in Houston (subtropical forest, swamp/bayou, coastal prairie, and immediate coast) each harbor significant amounts of biodiversity. Add up the total sum of species seen in each of the environments, and biodiversity easily goes to Houston, bar none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
There are also a number of smaller arguments and assumptions that do not always hold true very well. For example... how green an area stays. Because of the biodiversity the Atlanta area has, this is a complicated argument. Large parts do lose their green in winter. We have species that shed their leaves, but the caveat is we have many species that do not as well. Much of how green a specific area in Winter has to do with the specific plants there. That is affected by everything from elevation, location relative to a slope (affecting sunlight and water runoff), to the timing is disturbance events (ie. fire, trees falling over from old age, extreme weather, etc...).
All that affects the specific type of species that end up in a single location at a certain time.
So this argument isn't always true and the irony is its a byproduct of the one topic people seem glued to for several pages.... biodiversity.
That's true. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the landscape around Atlanta is still drab during winter relative to that seen in Houston, and the rest of the Coastal South region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
The other issue is this is about the way we live in the populated parts of the region... closer resembled by the urban area. Atlanta to a large degree has zoning that kept our tree canopy and we have more vegetation where we actually live with that diversity since we are comparing ideas on where people might want to live or not.
People all over Houston are living in areas representative of at least one of the many types of landscapes to be seen in the metro, and experience the biodiversity that comes along with such landscapes. For example, people in the southeastern portion of Houston enjoy the coastal environment, as well as subtropical forest, and coastal prarie areas. People in the northern areas of Houston enjoy the many pine forest areas, and forest thickets around (Big Thicket National Preserve being a well known example.)
The definition suits Houston to a tee, and it does so year-round, unlike for Atlanta, which largely goes bare during winter.
Plant and animal diversity is far greater in Houston than in Atlanta; Atlanta gets too cold during winter to support the large variety of plants and animals that can be seen in Houston, such as large varieties of palm trees, broad-leaf evergreens, citrus trees, alligators, ibises, etc.
Laughable post.
Houston has a larger variety of landscapes within its metro area than Atlanta; not only does Houston have pine forest, it also has subtropical broad-leaf evergreen forest, swamps, coastal prairies, bayou landscapes, and beaches. Consider that each of those landscapes have their own organisms suited to the environments, and biodiversity largely goes in Houston's favor. Atlanta, on the other hand, mostly has the Appalachian deciduous forests, and thus only has organisms from such environments. Houston owns Atlanta in biodiversity, and you know it.
Parts of the coastline in the Houston metro is dedicated to industry, mostly in Galveston Bay, but other parts of Galveston Bay, like Kemah/Clear Lake, are straight-up resorts dedicated entirely to recreations; lots of boating available. Galveston Island has some decent beaches on its southern end: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...01903c77fe.jpg
The forest of Houston are much more exotic-looking, and diverse than Atlanta's; lots of broad-leaf evergreens about, like Live Oak, magnolia, bay trees, etc to keep things looking alive during winter, in contrast to the dead-landscape seen in Atlanta during winter.
Just thought I would chime in. I have no bone in this discussion, but having in worked in the natural resources in both Georgia and Texas and a degree in forestry, Atlanta has more tree biodiversity than Houston. The west side of Houston metro around is part of the post oak savannah which is much less plant -diverse.
As far as the winter, Loblolly, Shortleaf, Virginia pines, Eastern Red Cedar and many other evergreens are substantial part of Atlanta's tree canopy. Due to the climate Houston has more herbaceous weeds and grasses during the winter. Overall though as far as tree and shrub diversity, and overall tree canopy, there is really no other major city like Atlanta
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.
I guess it's past time to ignore the attempts to depict Houston as green and lush. LOL!
