HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #521  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:30 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 38,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Oh and by the way, without even meaning to, I found this map:

(now THAT is a correct map!)

Odd that the Ottawa River would be a hard boundary between two forest zones.
__________________
The pendulum is swinging back. Everybody duck!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #522  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:30 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
BTW the north coast of Ontario is nearly treeless, the few trees it does have are all stunted in their growth, and none of those maps reflect this so every single one thus far is wrong, except mine I posted just now here in this post here just now which does reflect the unique subarctic tundra nature of Ontario's saltwater coast.
Actually most forest maps I've seen have the Hudson coast of Ontario as tundra. Then the tree line starts at the MB/NU border, and goes towards the northwest (in Yukon, the tree line almost touches the ocean).

That that one does not show that is just a symptom of really low resolution. It's not as criminal as inventing a different forest category that's less differentiated than some of the others you're already lumping together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #523  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:35 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Odd that the Ottawa River would be a hard boundary between two forest zones.
Yeah, my comment to vid (above) applies to that too - it's just the low quality of the map (which is, approximately, tolerable, but far from perfect).

Another such flaw is the fact that Lac St-Jean is not "Mixed Forest" (a.k.a. "Temperate Forest") as it should. They lumped it into Boreal. Ironically, that's one thing the map posted earlier (with the stupid made up Acadian Forest) had right!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #524  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:36 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
unignorable quasi-mod
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
What is your problem with this map?

A map that separates a vast expanse of three continents into 4 zones?

It is also worth noting that in this map tundra is not the same as barren (which is a nearly non vegetated zone depicted in grey)

Looks like this map is largely based on a remote sensing NDVI.
I'm so sorry I triggered you. I won't happen again.
__________________
Guelph > Waterloo Region > Hamilton > Niagara Falls > Toronto > coming soon...other photos | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
I love to drive the highways, the skyways / Just to get lost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #525  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:37 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
... which is precisely why it's correct! Aren't you reading?




Wait, you did not understand why I'd be okay with a map that has all of Canada having the same generic climate called just "cold" (from a tropical point of view), while panning a map of Canada that has nearly all of Canada having that climate called "cold" but has an area of Southern Alberta with a different climate, that one labeled "Continental Semi-Arid"...?

Being more general - the former map - is why that map is correct / defensible.

The second climate map I'm describing is committing a capital sin - blatantly mismatched levels of detail. That's such a basic concept I can't believe I'm having to explain it.
This is the most bizarre argument I have heard in a long time.

First of all you seem to be mixing up climatic maps (which are based on more than just temperature) with forest cover maps.

Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan (and south east Manitoba to a lesser degree) will always be differentiated because they are semi arid grassland dominated regions.

You obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about so no point in arguing anymore. To be honest your posts on this last page have been so nonsensical that I honestly can determine if you are being like this simply to troll. You drunk or something?

Now go on arguing that you know more than people who spend their lives in these fields creating these maps.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #526  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:38 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Odd that the Ottawa River would be a hard boundary between two forest zones.
"Northernness" hits its southernmost point in Ontario, not in Quebec as that map would have you think (whoever made it took a pretty bad shortcut by using the provincial boundary as a biome limit!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #527  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:38 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I'm so sorry I triggered you. I won't happen again.
I didn’t even know that you and I were arguing?
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #528  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:42 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
The map says Thunder Bay has Eastern Hemlock and Oak in its forests, but we don't. I didn't see an oak tree in the wild until I went to Manitoba.

Also, it doesn't include tamarack/larch, but we have a lot of that here.
There are no natural hemlocks trees in Northwestern Ontario. I checked my tree books as well.

In the Northeast, I've seen them as far North as about Tilden Lake (North of North Bay) on Hwy 11. It's these ones right here: https://goo.gl/maps/TNi8HZFB5vG2

And the furthest North in the Northeast I've seen them is by Lake Superior along Hwy 17. I can't remember the exact location but I think it was somewhere between Montreal River Harbour and Pancake Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #529  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:44 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
This is the most bizarre argument I have heard in a long time.

First of all you seem to be mixing up climatic maps (which are based on more than just temperature) with forest cover maps.
Wait a minute, you did not understand that it was an analogy? Please sober up and come back to this thread tomorrow (or tonight, in your time zone).


Quote:
Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan (and south east Manitoba to a lesser degree) will always be differentiated because they are semi arid grassland dominated regions.
Not in a very very low-level-of-detail map made by someone living in the tropical jungle. It's all going to be "cold" and that's a valid approximation, at that level.



Quote:
Now go on arguing that you know more than people who spend their lives in these fields creating these maps.
What a weird argument. Anyone can create a map. They aren't gospel nor magically infallible, the proof of that is that we have two different maps (and we could easily find many more) that are already disagreeing on a bunch of things. The map I posted is incorrect on at least four minor things so far (pointed out by vid, Acajack, Loco101 and the fourth one by myself), but it's at least got the broad categories correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #530  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:46 AM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
They lumped it into Boreal. Ironically, that's one thing the map posted earlier (with the stupid made up Acadian Forest) had right!
The Acadian forest region is arbitrary but then again it can be useful to arbitrarily subdivide territories when there is no clear cutoff.

In the Maritimes there tends to be pretty unique coastal flora and then there are inland forested areas that are fairly similar to Ontario/Quebec (although the conditions and appearance are still a bit different).

The Atlantic coastal barrens in NS seem to have ~0 overlap with the inland areas in terms of species and they look very different. There aren't many typical deciduous plants. Instead a lot of it looks like oversized moss or succulents. For example there's a wild rhododendron type species and a broom type species and these only grow along the coastal plain (also down in MA and farther south along the coast). These are really neat hiking areas, plus they're somewhat endangered since the parts in the US became so urbanized.

I suspect southern Newfoundland is a bit like this too even though it gets lumped in with boreal areas.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #531  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:47 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
unignorable quasi-mod
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I didn’t even know that you and I were arguing?
I disagree with you that the map showing that Thunder Bay is located in a forest zone which includes species like hemlock and oak is the correct one when I know, on account of actually living here, that none of those species are common here. The region is dominated by poplar/aspen, birch, tamarack/larch, red maple, pine, and spruce. This map, a different version of the one you insist is correct, says we should have a different collection of tree species than we presently do.

But I'm not a scientist. Maybe I've misidentified the trees all these years?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
There are no natural hemlocks trees in Northwestern Ontario. I checked my tree books as well.

In the Northeast, I've seen them as far North as about Tilden Lake (North of North Bay) on Hwy 11. It's these ones right here: https://goo.gl/maps/TNi8HZFB5vG2

And the furthest North in the Northeast I've seen them is by Lake Superior along Hwy 17. I can't remember the exact location but I think it was somewhere between Montreal River Harbour and Pancake Bay.
Forest zones just means they're possible here, not that they're actually present!
__________________
Guelph > Waterloo Region > Hamilton > Niagara Falls > Toronto > coming soon...other photos | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
I love to drive the highways, the skyways / Just to get lost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #532  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:54 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The Acadian forest region is arbitrary but then again it can be useful to arbitrarily subdivide territories when there is no clear cutoff.

In the Maritimes there tends to be pretty unique coastal flora and then there are inland forested areas that are fairly similar to Ontario/Quebec (although the conditions and appearance are still a bit different).

The Atlantic coastal barrens in NS seem to have ~0 overlap with the inland areas in terms of species and they look very different. There aren't many typical deciduous plants. Instead a lot of it looks like oversized moss or succulents. For example there's a wild rhododendron type species and a broom type species and these only grow along the coastal plain (also down in MA and farther south along the coast). These are really neat hiking areas, plus they're somewhat endangered since the parts in the US became so urbanized.

I suspect southern Newfoundland is a bit like this too even though it gets lumped in with boreal areas.
Of course there's specific characteristics unique to the Maritimes, it's just that that map was not at that level of detail. I'm sorry but if you have Southeastern Manitoba, Thunder Bay, Kingston, Montreal, Campbellton, Gaspé, Edmundston in the exact same zone, you do not get to put Fredericton in a different zone. That's just indefensible.

The minimum level of detail that foresters work with would be that Quebec map I posted last page. I know this because one of my exes is a forester in this province. (For the record, I've also done business with a professional forester but that's in NH, otherwise I might have asked him the favor to take a look at the maps of Canada posted before just so someone with the authority of a diploma could finally make some others in here shut up.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #533  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:59 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
unignorable quasi-mod
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Of course there's specific characteristics unique to the Maritimes, it's just that that map was not at that level of detail. I'm sorry but if you have Southeastern Manitoba, Thunder Bay, Kingston, Montreal, Campbellton, Gaspé, Edmundston in the exact same zone, you do not get to put Fredericton in a different zone. That's just indefensible.
Obviously you're not aware of the intimate intricacies of the Acadia forest. You see, the forests around Winnipeg contain such species as spruce, fir, maple, and birch, among others, while the forests of Fredericton contain different species, namely spruce, fir, maple, and birch. That's a significant difference in species, and it requires distinction.

Actually, see, the spruce in the Acadian forest is red (or, to be politically correct, indigenous) while the spruce in the region of Winnipeg is what we now call white, or, "caucasian". And while Winnipeg has birch trees of European descent, the ones in Acadia are Yellow, like chinamen. These different races are super duper important to paper pushers, bird watchers, and the pedantic.
__________________
Guelph > Waterloo Region > Hamilton > Niagara Falls > Toronto > coming soon...other photos | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
I love to drive the highways, the skyways / Just to get lost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #534  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 5:04 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
I disagree with you that the map showing that Thunder Bay is located in a forest zone which includes species like hemlock and oak is the correct one when I know, on account of actually living here, that none of those species are common here. The region is dominated by poplar/aspen, birch, tamarack/larch, red maple, pine, and spruce. This map, a different version of the one you insist is correct, says we should have a different collection of tree species than we presently do.

But I'm not a scientist. Maybe I've misidentified the trees all these years?





Forest zones just means they're possible here, not that they're actually present!

I explained this, and your post above almost seems to contradict your argument.

It is a larger climatic zone.

First Thunder Bay is shown pretty close to the more northern Boreal Forest zone, signifying that it is on the extreme edge of the Great Lakes Zone. Therefore it is very common for not all species associated with that zone to be within your area.

Again I will use the Montane zone as an example.

Both Osoyoos and Prince George are shown to be in the same zone. There are countless tree species found in Osoyoos that are not present in Prince George, and the reverse is also true.

Ponderosa Pine is often listed as a common tree in the Montane zone (which extends from as north as the Yukon in some maps and as south as Mexico in others)

In fact Ponderosa Pine only grows as far north as about 100 km or so north of Kamloops (such as near Clinton and south of Clearwater). Yet Prince George (which actually shares many species found in the Boreal zone) is still listed as Montane.

Therefore it is no surprise that a place like Thunder Bay at the northern end of its forest zone would lack several species listed for that zone and also have many species listed for the zone just north of it.

These forest zones are not only organized by tree species, but also shrub species, other plantlife, wildlife, forest form, soils, and climatic conditions.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #535  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 5:12 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
unignorable quasi-mod
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,637
Well then I guess we've got a bad case of the southern shrubs. Because other than the red pine, eastern white pine, yellow birch and the vague "maple", we don't fit the classification it says we fit. All of the boreal species is lists are present. And neither mentions tamarack which is actually the dominant tree in the forest, at least around Thunder Bay. That species isn't even listed in the boreal zone, though, so I guess all those coniferous trees that turn bright yellow and drop their needles in fall are just... hemlock?
__________________
Guelph > Waterloo Region > Hamilton > Niagara Falls > Toronto > coming soon...other photos | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
I love to drive the highways, the skyways / Just to get lost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #536  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 5:15 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
If the hardwoods in the Thunder Bay area are poplar/aspen and white birch, then that's "Boreal". If in addition to those you have trees like maples, and elms, and yellow birch, and Pennsylvania ash, then it's "Mixed".

Again, that's valid at that level of detail. I am sure we could easily find Ontario forest maps matching that Quebec example I posted last page. At that (different) level of detail, it's pretty much a certainty Thunder Bay isn't in the same vegetation zone as Kingston anymore.

I'm pretty sure TB is at the edge of both zones, and I'm perfectly open with zone boundaries in frontier areas being sometimes not perfectly correct (transition zones are a continuum anyway). That is NOT the same kind of huge-map-design-101-No-No as mixing up grossly incompatible levels of detail like arbitrarily splitting off a certain Mixed Forest into its own category while keeping very different types of Mixed Forest lumped together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #537  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 5:26 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Well then I guess we've got a bad case of the southern shrubs. Because other than the red pine, eastern white pine, yellow birch and the vague "maple", we don't fit the classification it says we fit. All of the boreal species is lists are present. And neither mentions tamarack which is actually the dominant tree in the forest, at least around Thunder Bay. That species isn't even listed in the boreal zone, though, so I guess all those coniferous trees that turn bright yellow and drop their needles in fall are just... hemlock?
Now things are getting silly, they are obviously not exhaustive lists of tree species present.

For example the west coast zone is missing Big Leaf Maple, Shore Pine, White Pine, Noble Fir, Vine Maple, Cascara, Arbutus, Dogwood, Yellow Cedar, Black Cottonwood, etc...
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/306346...h/29495547810/ and Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0...lhxXFxuAey_q6Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #538  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 5:28 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,616
Huh, for some reason I couldn't find any more detailed Ontario forest zones map than the same very basic level we've been discussing - the basic level where there can't be any argument that "Acadian Forest" does not exist (i.e. is merely one of many subsets of "Mixed Forest")




Seems that all such maps have decided TB is in Mixed, not Boreal. If you say you do have Yellow Birch and Red Maple, then that classification is perfectly normal.

Again, we're talking here about the level of detail that has (and always should have) Deciduous-Mixed-Boreal-Arctic as categories, not Deciduous-Mixed-Acadian-Boreal-Arctic. At that level of detail, TB is in the same category as Montreal. Or Fredericton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #539  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 7:29 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
The Acadian forest region is arbitrary but then again it can be useful to arbitrarily subdivide territories when there is no clear cutoff.

In the Maritimes there tends to be pretty unique coastal flora and then there are inland forested areas that are fairly similar to Ontario/Quebec (although the conditions and appearance are still a bit different).

The Atlantic coastal barrens in NS seem to have ~0 overlap with the inland areas in terms of species and they look very different. There aren't many typical deciduous plants. Instead a lot of it looks like oversized moss or succulents. For example there's a wild rhododendron type species and a broom type species and these only grow along the coastal plain (also down in MA and farther south along the coast). These are really neat hiking areas, plus they're somewhat endangered since the parts in the US became so urbanized.

I suspect southern Newfoundland is a bit like this too even though it gets lumped in with boreal areas.
It does. The province is broken down into smaller ecoregions:



It's all lumped into Boreal, but there's quite the difference in some spots. Extreme southern NL (South Avalon-Burin Oceanic Barrens) could be mistaken for tundra, there's next to nothing there but land. Maritime Barrens are a mixed bag, it's not really that barren until you're at elevation. Plenty of forest with trees you would expect from a boreal forest...black spruce, balsam fir, white birch, yellow birch, trembling aspen, red maple, mountain ash, white spruce.

Each of these regions are even further broken down into unique forest sub-regions, but I would have to literally find someone's thesis and read it again to break it all down. The prominence of deciduous trees in these sub-regions is completely dependent on how sheltered they are from the elements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #540  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 7:42 PM
TownGuy's Avatar
TownGuy TownGuy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Cobourg, ON
Posts: 1,744
For Ontario I found this eco-regions map, which is highly detailed. If you click the link I post it lists corresponding trees for each eco-region.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ecosyste...and-ecoregions

Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:59 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.