HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #501  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 1:33 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Eastern Hemlock range as per wikipedia.

Hilariously, the only area of the Maritimes (NW NB) that doesn't have Eastern Hemlock is the only area of the Maritimes that is in the forest category that has Eastern Hemlock listed (i.e. pale purple instead of pale orange).

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #502  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 1:59 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,391
I don’t think you guys know how to read such maps.

There are thousands of tree species in North America. Some are found in numerous forest zones, others are found only in a small part of a single zone.

These are generalized zones that can be further subdivided.

Example, the Montane zone in BC.

This zone is generally defined as having hot to mild summers and realively low precipitation, bounded by the drier / hotter grasslands on one side, and cooler and or moister zones on the other.

Within this zone they mention Lodgepole Pines, Douglas Firs, and Ponderosa Pines as the dominant species.

Now follow me here, this is where things get tricky.

In the hottest / driest regions of this zone Ponderosa Pines are plentiful, Douglas Firs are sparse, and Lodgepole Pines are absent.

In the mild areas Douglas Fir is plentiful and both Ponderosa Pines and Lodgepole Pines are sparse.

In the coolest / wettest regions of this zone Lodgepole Pines are abundant, Douglas Firs are sparse, and Ponderosa Pines are absent.

Point being, on such generalized zones often used for nation / continental wide maps you will have tree species listed that are not within your area.

This even occurs on such maps with higher zonal resolutions.

The Pacific Rainforest also has numerous species that change as one goes south to north, but the climatic aspects and function of the ecosystem are generally the same.
__________________
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
     
     
  #503  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 2:32 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is offline
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 18,667
Both the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence forest region and the Acadian Forest are mixed forest zones, but there is a subtle difference.

1) - the Acadian Forest has some softwood Boreal overtones, with abundant spruce and not much pine (although pine is plentiful in southern and central NS).

2) - the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Forest tends to have a lot more pine, but in my travels, once you get far enough north on the Shield (say north of Parry Sound), you get Boreal characteristics like spruce cropping up again.

Curiously in the Acadian Forest, despite the fact there is a lot of spruce and balsam fir, the hardwood component can be quite dominant in places (influenced by soil type and quality, and can include maple, birch, hemlock, oak, beech, aspen and ash.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #504  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 2:38 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I don’t think you guys know how to read such maps.
I don't think there are any properly educated forestry and/or ecology majors here. Just people who look at maps, read wikipedia and bushwalk, and then seem to think they are experts in this part of the environmental field lol.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #505  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 2:57 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Eastern Hemlock could probably tolerate the extreme southern NWO climate, but it's a fairly rare tree even here. I happen to have tons of them on my land, but only next to the river. In other settings (than a humid river valley), good luck seeing them, even within their supposed natural range. They won't grow just anywhere and are much more picky than most species.

So, my point is, maybe you have some in your area, but just haven't looked in the right places. (Unlike oak, which you'd knew if you had. For starters, it would be a popular urban ornamental tree in TB.)
We have some ornamental oak but not many. They're very unique trees here, so I often notice right away if its an oak tree. No other tree up here puts out leaves in the same clumpy way as oaks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #506  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:21 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Both the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence forest region and the Acadian Forest are mixed forest zones, but there is a subtle difference.
That is exactly my point - it's a subtle difference therefore it absolutely does not belong on that map. That's like having a climate map of Canada where the entire country is classified as one generic climate called "cold" (true from a tropical point of view), and then you have a pocket of Southern Alberta labeled "Continental Semi-Arid". That's a huge no no, even though both individually are correct. You don't blatantly mix up levels of details like that when you make maps.

Eastern Canada has four general forest biomes: "Arctic", "Boreal", "Mixed", "Deciduous".

Then if you want you can take it to the next level of detail, which is also easily documented:




But combining the two, nope. Totally indefensible. That idiotic map was done by someone who wanted to make Maritimers feel special.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #507  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:23 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Oh and by the way, without even meaning to, I found this map:

(now THAT is a correct map!)

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #508  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:27 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
I don’t think you guys know how to read such maps.
I frankly don't think you know how to read period. Been a while since I saw such a reading comprehension fail, and that's saying something.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #509  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:37 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I frankly don't think you know how to read period. Been a while since I saw such a reading comprehension fail, and that's saying something.
Please articulate your point with the references I gave in my post.

I know you are a genius in every topic imaginable, so please enlighten me.

And by the way, you “correct map” is simply extremely low in zonal resolution.

Now the South Okanagan and Whitehorse are the same zone. (Which I am actually not going to call incorrect at this scale, I just fond it interesting that you actually know so little about forestry and ecology that you have now praised one map over another simply because it is more general.)
__________________
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
     
     
  #510  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:38 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,791
Every map is an oversimplification of the points of view of its creator. Your argument is stupid and I am honestly taken aback at how fucking infantile and triggered the people of this country get when we discuss climate and the environment. This is stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #511  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:39 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus View Post
I don't think there are any properly educated forestry and/or ecology majors here. Just people who look at maps, read wikipedia and bushwalk, and then seem to think they are experts in this part of the environmental field lol.
Tell me about it, all the arm chair experts on this forum can be quite obtuse at times.

It just reminds you that every topic is filled with people that don’t know what they are talking about.
__________________
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
     
     
  #512  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:43 AM
FrAnKs's Avatar
FrAnKs FrAnKs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ville de Québec / Quebec city
Posts: 4,979
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!)

I had never noticed how far into the Northwest territories the Boreal forest was going until now. I always assumed it stopped at the North end of Alberta or something...
__________________
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ==> 8 500 000
MONTREAL ==> 4 250 000
QUEBEC CITY ==> 825 000
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #513  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 3:46 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,791
It literally circles the planet:



I'll leave it up to Metro One to explain why and how I'm wrong.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #514  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:14 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,233
I agree with the map above. Most of those other maps had some obvious inaccuracies that I know of because of my studies and travels.

Timmins is in the boreal forest. Not a in the mixed forest or Great Lakes St-Lawrence forest. We're too far North for maples and there are only some isolated red and white pines. Here's you'll see mostly black spruce, white spruce, balsam fir, jack pine, trembling aspen, balsam poplar, tamarack, eastern white cedar, white birch and in certain places black ash. There are many other smaller sized trees or bushes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #515  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:17 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
I agree with the map above. Most of those other maps had some obvious inaccuracies that I know of because of my studies and travels.
Your studies and travels are wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #516  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:21 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
It literally circles the planet:



I'll leave it up to Metro One to explain why and how I'm wrong.
The creator of this map forgot a category! There should be five, not four:

- Arctic Tundra
- Boreal Forest
- Temperate Forest
- Acadian Forest
- Grasslands
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #517  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:23 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
The creator of this map forgot a category! There should be five, not four:

- Arctic Tundra
- Boreal Forest
- Temperate Forest
- Acadian Forest
- Grasslands
Shit! Fooled again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #518  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:24 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 24,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
And by the way, you “correct map” is simply extremely low in zonal resolution.
... which is precisely why it's correct! Aren't you reading?


Quote:
Now the South Okanagan and Whitehorse are the same zone. (Which I am actually not going to call incorrect at this scale, I just fond it interesting that you actually know so little about forestry and ecology that you have now praised one map over another simply because it is more general.)
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #519  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:25 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 13,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
It literally circles the planet:



I'll leave it up to Metro One to explain why and how I'm wrong.

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.
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #520  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2019, 4:26 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,125
One word: Taiga
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
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 5:33 AM.

     

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