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.
At least we can agree on one thing, our dislike for deciduous trees. I wish every hardwood tree were evergreen. I have never been impressed by Fall color. Big deal, last for a couple weeks then nothing for months. I just never have liked deciduous trees due to winter. I realize they are beautiful in summer, and I appreciate them for that. But jeez I wish North American forests were totally evergreen. Kind of like Australia and NZ.
What's so bad about this?
In my opinion the problem is the lack of snow, not the lack of leaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithgn
Referring back to what a previous poster said, pines also can be designated as subtropical. And in my opinion, its a bit more than coincidental that they start to appear in abundance in warmer areas of the eastern side of North America.
I disagree. Places with an average winter temperature not far from freezing (e.g. southern New Jersey) that can also grow pines should not be considered subtropical. A subtropical climate should have more in common with a tropical climate than a temperate climate.
Also, I'm not denying that warmer parts of the eastern U.S. tend to be greener than colder parts. But being greener than, say, Pennsylvania isn't enough to make a place subtropical.
Good for you. I wouldn't have any deciduous trees on my property lol.
Blackjack Oak is native to the southern forests isn't it?
Thanks. One thing I failed to mention is that my backyard is fairly small, but I've cut about half a dozen deciduous trees. Why don't you start cutting a few down? Luckily, mine weren't terribly tall.
Apparently, blackjack oaks are native throughout South Carolina. I wouldn't have known that had I not looked at a distribution map. Surely, I would have spotted these monstrosities but I have yet to see any of these uglies besides my backyard. Lucky me. I'm 90% sure its a blackjack oak. I'm actually going to post a picture to hardypalms.com to find out what exactly it is.
In my opinion the problem is the lack of snow, not the lack of leaves.
I disagree. Places with an average winter temperature not far from freezing (e.g. southern New Jersey) that can also grow pines should not be considered subtropical. A subtropical climate should have more in common with a tropical climate than a temperate climate.
Also, I'm not denying that warmer parts of the eastern U.S. tend to be greener than colder parts. But being greener than, say, Pennsylvania isn't enough to make a place subtropical.
True, despite coastal south Jersey being a 7B area, I can't quite begin to call it subtropical. Technically, a subtropical climate is temperate. Tropics are in the tropics.
Whether the gulf states and extreme southeastern states are subtropical is always going to be a point of debate, but I believe you have to draw a line somewhere that's not in central Florida and extreme south Texas. I've convinced myself with all of these maps and general temperature minimums in the winter time that it starts around 8A, with some 7B areas that could be subtropical.
I disagree. Places with an average winter temperature not far from freezing (e.g. southern New Jersey) that can also grow pines should not be considered subtropical. A subtropical climate should have more in common with a tropical climate than a temperate climate.
Also, I'm not denying that warmer parts of the eastern U.S. tend to be greener than colder parts. But being greener than, say, Pennsylvania isn't enough to make a place subtropical.
Subtropical climates are temperate climates, so that assertion wouldn't make much sense.
Subtropical climates should have a higher degree of plant/animal/insect activity in their cold season, than in the other temperate climates.
True, despite coastal south Jersey being a 7B area, I can't quite begin to call it subtropical. Technically, a subtropical climate is temperate. Tropics are in the tropics.
Whether the gulf states and extreme southeastern states are subtropical is always going to be a point of debate, but I believe you have to draw a line somewhere that's not in central Florida and extreme south Texas. I've convinced myself with all of these maps and general temperature minimums in the winter time that it starts around 8A, with some 7B areas that could be subtropical.
Deciduous trees in the South are a relic from the last Ice Age, anyways, when the region served as a sanctuary for them (since everywhere North was too cold even for deciduous trees). I think in many forests throughout the South, you can literally see the emerging subtropical forest growing up from the deciduous forest under-story.
Deciduous trees in the South are a relic from the last Ice Age, anyways, when the region served as a sanctuary for them (since everywhere North was too cold even for deciduous trees). I think in many forests throughout the South, you can literally see the emerging subtropical forest growing up from the deciduous forest under-story.
There is no evidence for this. None. It's been thousands of years since that ice age. What broadleaf evergreens are taking over in the southern forest? Please name which species.
This link mentioned two classifications I have never heard of before:
The first by American Griffiths seems pretty reasonable. The German one seems too low on the coldest month avg temp. But the German one uses the term "warm temperate zones". Troll Paffen also excludes oceanic and continental, so I'm confused by that one.
The problem with all these classifications imo is that they don't seem to mention lowest annual temp, avg daily high temp in the coldest month, number of days below freezing, growing season length, etc. In other words, they don't include vegetation at all. And you could theoretically have a place that has a mean Jan temp of 43F, but the temps never go above 50F. I wonder if it would be possible to have flowering and winter growth with temps temps consistently under 50F in winter? On the other hand, Scilly Isles, with those cool winter temps, look much more alive in winter than the vast majority of the inland deep south in the US. Which looks more subtropical Scilly or Jackson, MS. I would say Scilly easily. And though Jackson has warmer winter high temps, it is the lowest reached each winter combined with the avg low and number of freezing nights that make it look more dead in winter.
I doubt there are many people out there that imagine a subtropical climate as a dead leafless landscape with nothing growing in winter. That just seems contradictory to the word "subtropical". Lowest annual winter temp, number of freezing nights, and average daily high temps in the coldest month would seem a pretty good indicator of how alive a place would look in winter, along with ice days, and growing season length.
Here are these other two classifications:
American climatologist John F. Griffiths in his book Applied climatology described the subtropical zone as having a coldest month of between 6 °C (42.8 °F) and 18 °C (64.4 °F) and assigning to this group the letter B, while the original B group of Köppen taxonomy would be spread over the various temperature-based groups.
German climatologists Carl Troll and Karlheinz Paffen defined warmgemäßigte Zonen ("Warm temperate zones") plain and hilly lands having an average temperature of the coldest month between 2 °C (35.6 °F) and 13 °C (55.4 °F) in Northern Hemisphere and between 6 °C (42.8 °F) and 13 °C (55.4 °F) in Southern Hemisphere, excluding oceanic and continental climates. According to Troll-Paffen climate classification, generally exist one a large subtropical zone named Warmgemäßigt-subtropisches Zonenklima (en: warm-temperate subtropical zone) divided into seven smaller areas.
There is no evidence for this. None. It's been thousands of years since that ice age. What broadleaf evergreens are taking over in the southern forest? Please name which species.
This link mentioned two classifications I have never heard of before:
The first by American Griffiths seems pretty reasonable. The German one seems too low on the coldest month avg temp. But the German one uses the term "warm temperate zones". Troll Paffen also excludes oceanic and continental, so I'm confused by that one.
The problem with all these classifications imo is that they don't seem to mention lowest annual temp, avg daily high temp in the coldest month, number of days below freezing, growing season length, etc. In other words, they don't include vegetation at all. And you could theoretically have a place that has a mean Jan temp of 43F, but the temps never go above 50F. I wonder if it would be possible to have flowering and winter growth with temps temps consistently under 50F in winter? On the other hand, Scilly Isles, with those cool winter temps, look much more alive in winter than the vast majority of the inland deep south in the US. Which looks more subtropical Scilly or Jackson, MS. I would say Scilly easily. And though Jackson has warmer winter high temps, it is the lowest reached each winter combined with the avg low and number of freezing nights that make it look more dead in winter.
I doubt there are many people out there that imagine a subtropical climate as a dead leafless landscape with nothing growing in winter. That just seems contradictory to the word "subtropical". Lowest annual winter temp, number of freezing nights, and average daily high temps in the coldest month would seem a pretty good indicator of how alive a place would look in winter, along with ice days, and growing season length.
Here are these other two classifications:
American climatologist John F. Griffiths in his book Applied climatology described the subtropical zone as having a coldest month of between 6 °C (42.8 °F) and 18 °C (64.4 °F) and assigning to this group the letter B, while the original B group of Köppen taxonomy would be spread over the various temperature-based groups.
German climatologists Carl Troll and Karlheinz Paffen defined warmgemäßigte Zonen ("Warm temperate zones") plain and hilly lands having an average temperature of the coldest month between 2 °C (35.6 °F) and 13 °C (55.4 °F) in Northern Hemisphere and between 6 °C (42.8 °F) and 13 °C (55.4 °F) in Southern Hemisphere, excluding oceanic and continental climates. According to Troll-Paffen climate classification, generally exist one a large subtropical zone named Warmgemäßigt-subtropisches Zonenklima (en: warm-temperate subtropical zone) divided into seven smaller areas.
From what I've gathered, the southeast has one of the most diverse forest mix of trees in the world. I think your measurement of broadleaf evergreens being subtropical is just not applicable to the southeast because conifers became the tree that started to dominate and migrate northward after the last ice age. Not broadleaf evergreens. Using broadleaf evergreens is very southeast asia-centric. These two areas are on two different continents. One is dominated by broadleaf evergreens and the other conifers.
How about we apply the reverse and ask why southeast Asia lacks the amount of pine forests in its subtropical areas and is so heavily dominated by evergreen forests in some areas? I think you personally value broadleaf evergreens more than pines, which is why you used a biased approach into measuring subtropical climates solely by broeadleaf evergreens. If you hold that stance, then its just as easy for me to feel the same about conifers. The lack of diversity and conifers in southeast Asian forests just doesn't designate it as being "more" subtropical than the southeast.
Plus, as I've seen discussed previously and can attest to with numerous specimens in my yard, I have plenty of broad leaf evergreen plants from southeast Asia. Maybe in 100 years, they will become a naturally occurring population in the wild along with the conifers in our area. Adding to the diversity. You want to know why? Because they grow here with no problem! There is actually a population to distribute and spread its population.
It's not that the southeast doesn't have plentiful broadleaf evergreens in its forests because it can't grow them; The southeast doesn't have plentiful broadleaf evergreens because they just don't have them. There's no adjoining area that allows the spread of such a category of plants.
That just seems contradictory to the word "subtropical".
The prefix of "sub" takes away from the tropical. Less than tropical. Not tropical. Or "imperfectly" tropical, as I just read from one of the quick definitions of the prefix of "sub".
From what I've gathered, the southeast has one of the most diverse forest mix of trees in the world. I think your measurement of broadleaf evergreens being subtropical is just not applicable to the southeast because conifers became the tree that started to dominate and migrate northward after the last ice age. Not broadleaf evergreens. Using broadleaf evergreens is very southeast asia-centric. These two areas are on two different continents. One is dominated by broadleaf evergreens and the other conifers.
How about we apply the reverse and ask why southeast Asia lacks the amount of pine forests in its subtropical areas and is so heavily dominated by evergreen forests in some areas? I think you personally value broadleaf evergreens more than pines, which is why you used a biased approach into measuring subtropical climates solely by broeadleaf evergreens. If you hold that stance, then its just as easy for me to feel the same about conifers. The lack of diversity and conifers in southeast Asian forests just doesn't designate it as being "more" subtropical than the southeast.
Plus, as I've seen discussed previously and can attest to with numerous specimens in my yard, I have plenty of broad leaf evergreen plants from southeast Asia. Maybe in 100 years, they will become a naturally occurring population in the wild along with the conifers in our area. Adding to the diversity. You want to know why? Because they grow here with no problem! There is actually a population to distribute and spread its population.
It's not that the southeast doesn't have plentiful broadleaf evergreens in its forests because it can't grow them; The southeast doesn't have plentiful broadleaf evergreens because they just don't have them. There's no adjoining area that allows the spread of such a category of plants.
You do realize that conifers dominate biomes like the subarctic taiga? Where does any subarctic area in the world have naturally occurring broadleaf evergreen forests? Like nowhere because it's too cold. Having conifers in the SE USA doesn't mean much because of most conifers cold tolerance. The only ones that aren't are families like Araucaria and Agathis from the Southern Hemisphere.
You do realize that conifers dominate biomes like the subarctic taiga? Where does any subarctic area in the world have naturally occurring broadleaf evergreen forests? Like nowhere because it's too cold. Having conifers in the SE USA doesn't mean much because of most conifers cold tolerance. The only ones that aren't are families like Araucaria and Agathis from the Southern Hemisphere.
It means something since that after the ice age, or 9,000 years ago, conifers began expanding to areas of the south and southern piedmont. Why do conifers in the southeast all of a sudden start a shift north and westwards at the end of the ice age when temperatures start to warm up? And if so ever present in places of subarctic taiga, why weren't they present during the ice age in the southeast? Honestly though, I don't know the answer to the last question I pose.
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.
