The tropical rainforests of South Florida (Miami, Coral Gables: 2014, home, school)

[Yn0hTnA]

As you all know, Miami is classified as a tropical climate, as is the rest of South Florida; such is quite a unique occurrence on Earth, as South Florida is OUTSIDE of the tropical latitudes. In addition to having such a warm, tropical climate, the Miami area also gets loads of annual rainfall in a year (over 60 inches):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami#Climate

A tropical climate with lots of rain in a year means only one thing; tropical rainforests are present. And contrary to popular belief of many US citizens, legit tropical rainforests do exist in South Florida; you can see many plants growing in those South Florida forests that are commonly found in rainforests of Central and South America. Examples of such flora include the Gumbo Limbo tree, the mahogany tree, the Florida strangler fig, and, along the coast, mangroves.

To underscore this fact, there is a portion of the Miami metro area, Ft. Lauderdale, that has a legit tropical rainforest climate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_L...lorida#Climate

Thus, I'd imagine that there would be some impressive, multi-canopy tropical rainforests in South Florida, especially around Ft. Lauderdale. Most people think that Hawaii is the only place in the US with true tropical rainforests. However, South Florida, with its tropical climate with plentiful rain, also has areas of forest; thus, it can be said that South Florida has tropical rainforests. Places in Miami like Coral Gables look as if they were carved right out of the Amazon.

I'm just sharing what I found interesting; I think that South Florida is quite unique, having a tropical climate well outside the tropics. Very few areas of the globe can match that.

[unquiltom]

It's true that the climate would support a tropical rainforest, but the soil, and underlying coral bedrock prevents what would be considered a true rainforest to develop. You need a deep soil base for most tropical foliage to thrive, South Florida is mostly about 6 to 12 inches of soil over a hard coral base.

[tallrick]

This year the climate can barely support a grassland. Hope it is not a trend. In my home and my parents home the soil is rich and dark from extensive composting. The wet/dry season cycle here assures that a rainforest is impossible. Many rainforests have only a thin layer of soil over rock or sand. After they are cut down the land can only support pine trees, as south Florida once did.

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by unquiltom

It's true that the climate would support a tropical rainforest, but the soil, and underlying coral bedrock prevents what would be considered a true rainforest to develop. You need a deep soil base for most tropical foliage to thrive, South Florida is mostly about 6 to 12 inches of soil over a hard coral base.

So that would mean that South Florida's rainforests would be confined only to areas of proper soil, forming what would be called hammocks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_hardwood_hammock

Originally Posted by tallrick

This year the climate can barely support a grassland. Hope it is not a trend.

What is happening in South Florida that is making you say that?

Originally Posted by tallrick

In my home and my parents home the soil is rich and dark from extensive composting. The wet/dry season cycle here assures that a rainforest is impossible. Many rainforests have only a thin layer of soil over rock or sand. After they are cut down the land can only support pine trees, as south Florida once did.

I don't know if the wet-dry season style climate prevents rainforest; Manaus, Brazil, has such a monsoonal regime, and it is in the middle of the Amazon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manaus#Climate

Also, Ft.Lauderdale has a legit tropical rainforest climate, as I mentioned in the first post.

[tallrick]

Years ago we actually had winters which would freeze and kill off tropical plants. In the 70's we even had a "snow" day! This year we have no rainy season and that is the trend I am concerned about. I have not seen a thunderstorm in a long time.

[Yn0hTnA]

A tropical hammock in Florida:

https://theprestemons.files.wordpres...ammock-038.jpg

Given the warm year-round climate, and plentiful rainfall (over 60 inches), it is, essentially, a tropical rainforest. Yet, school text-books never make not of this ecological region; they are far too broad, going as far as to place the entire Eastern US as "Temperate Deciduous Forest."

Originally Posted by tallrick

Years ago we actually had winters which would freeze and kill off tropical plants. In the 70's we even had a "snow" day! This year we have no rainy season and that is the trend I am concerned about. I have not seen a thunderstorm in a long time.

How long has Florida been under this dry spell?

[valicky]

I've never seen a summer as dry as this one. I've lived here for over 35 years. Tallrick, do you remember any other summer like this one? Even when we do get rain it isn't the typical afternoon thunderstorms. We've been getting showers at night. We've had a few in the afternoon this week, but really quick storms.

[popcorn247]

Originally Posted by valicky

I've never seen a summer as dry as this one. I've lived here for over 35 years. Tallrick, do you remember any other summer like this one? Even when we do get rain it isn't the typical afternoon thunderstorms. We've been getting showers at night. We've had a few in the afternoon this week, but really quick storms.

I've read that this is the driest 'rainy season' in 60 years down here.

[StarfishKey]

It is freaking hilarious when people take the trouble to cite a source, and then cite Wikipedia. You do know that Wikipedia is created by random online users, who have the ability to change the contents at will any time of day or night, right? Wikipedia is not now, nor has it ever been, a scholarly source. You might as well cite your own blog. Just write online comments that come from your own voice, that is exactly the same thing as listing Wikipedia, it's not like it backs you up in any way. If you really want to be scholarly, cite an actual scholarly source. It's like citing a random C-D post as a "source."

[Yn0hTnA]

Originally Posted by StarfishKey

It is freaking hilarious when people take the trouble to cite a source, and then cite Wikipedia. You do know that Wikipedia is created by random online users, who have the ability to change the contents at will any time of day or night, right? Wikipedia is not now, nor has it ever been, a scholarly source. You might as well cite your own blog. Just write online comments that come from your own voice, that is exactly the same thing as listing Wikipedia, it's not like it backs you up in any way. If you really want to be scholarly, cite an actual scholarly source. It's like citing a random C-D post as a "source."

Yes, Wikipedia is written by random online users, but the information on Wikipedia also contain citations to actual scholarly sources as well. You can see such sources used by clicking on the numbers throughout the text surrounded by brackets ([]).