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.
Lol you've obviously never been to West Texas. It sits in two of the most inhospitable deserts in NA (Tularosa/Jornada del Muerto; Big Bend), though, strangely, also in one of the most bio-diverse on Earth (Chihuahuan).
To be fair, Gunion Powder did say "parts" of Louisiana and Texas not all of Louisiana and Texas.
Texas is a huge state. Some parts are dry, like West Texas, as you mentioned, while other parts, like Southeast Texas, are wet. Southeast Texas averages more annual rainfall than almost the entire CONUS.
But the parts that are dry are really dry. Like Nevada dry. That's got to average it out a little.
When I lived in NE Texas, that was like a jungle. Here in NM you worry about thissle and goat-heads invading you yard, out there it was all vines, tons of them, waist-high! They wrecked the lawnmower so we had to use a machete and a schythe.
If Texas was two states, it could be the greenest, while the other would be greenish, brown, and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
To be fair, Gunion Powder did say "parts" of Louisiana and Texas not all of Louisiana and Texas.
That's not any greener than the Pacific Northwest though.
No, you claimed that the Southeast wasn't very green during the winter. I then debunked your claim, demonstrating to you an example of the type of environment seen throughout the entire coastal area along the Gulf/South Atlantic.
Not sure if I say it's the best either, the trees in the PNW grow a lot taller and a lot of the areas get much more rainfall than the South.
No fiction: the Coastal South is indeed the best area for profuse forest growth with lots of diverse flora and fauna, in terms of climate. Again, biodiversity is directly correlated with how warm and wet a place is; why do you think that tropical rainforests like the Amazon are the most bio-diverse ecosystems on the planet?
The trees are taller in the PNW simply because the PNW just so happened to have the tree species that are taller, which can happen through random mutation of a population introducing a tall "allele." The PNW has copious rainfall, but is too cool year-round to allow for profuse growth of habitat containing large varieties of flora and fauna. The trees may be tall, and the vegetation lush, but the ecosystem will not be as diverse, intricate, and complex when compared to a tropical rainforest; many PNW rainforest areas are monospecies ecosystems. The Southeast, with a warm, wet climate, is a better approximation.
One last thing: just because a tree may not be tall doesn't mean that it is stunted due to climate. Live Oaks are not as tall as many hardwood trees, but it still maintains the unmistakable huge girth, canopy, and majesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kehkou
But the parts that are dry are really dry. Like Nevada dry. That's got to average it out a little.
When I lived in NE Texas, that was like a jungle. Here in NM you worry about thissle and goat-heads invading you yard, out there it was all vines, tons of them, waist-high! They wrecked the lawnmower so we had to use a machete and a schythe.
If Texas was two states, it could be the greenest, while the other would be greenish, brown, and white.
That's why we specify distinct areas when we discuss huge states like Texas.
No, you claimed that the Southeast wasn't very green during the winter. I then debunked your claim, demonstrating to you an example of the type of environment seen throughout the entire coastal area along the Gulf/South Atlantic.
No that isn't what I exactly claimed, I clearly made exceptions for Florida and the Deep South which would include the Gulf Coast.
Quote:
No fiction: the Coastal South is indeed the best area for profuse forest growth with lots of diverse flora and fauna, in terms of climate. Again, biodiversity is directly correlated with how warm and wet a place is; why do you think that tropical rainforests like the Amazon are the most bio-diverse ecosystems on the planet?
The trees are taller in the PNW simply because the PNW just so happened to have the tree species that are taller, which can happen through random mutation of a population introducing a tall "allele." The PNW has copious rainfall, but is too cool year-round to allow for profuse growth of habitat containing large varieties of flora and fauna. The trees may be tall, and the vegetation lush, but the ecosystem will not be as diverse, intricate, and complex when compared to a tropical rainforest; many PNW rainforest areas are monospecies ecosystems. The Southeast, with a warm, wet climate, is a better approximation.
You would think but that isn't really the case.
Plenty of areas outside of the Southeast are just as and more diverse in some cases including drier and colder states.
To be fair, the environments and ecosystems of the Southeast aren't really well explored/known/studied, so it is indeed possible that the vast wealth of biodiversity the region holds just isn't cataloged. The West, including California, represented a stark change in environment to the natural observers, who were used to the environment of the east; thus, the naturalists were more eager to catalog/record all the species that lived out West more readily compared to the East.
But, once again, the warmer and wetter a place is, the more biodiversity it will have; tropical rainforests are the center of biodiversity on the planet, not PNW temperate rainforests, not deserts, not prairies. The Southeastern US from East Texas to Florida, up to Virginia is closer to exhibiting tropical rainforest conditions than any other region in the CONUS.
To be fair, the environments and ecosystems of the Southeast aren't really well explored/known/studied, so it is indeed possible that the vast wealth of biodiversity the region holds just isn't cataloged. The West, including California, represented a stark change in environment to the natural observers, who were used to the environment of the east; thus, the naturalists were more eager to catalog/record all the species that lived out West more readily compared to the East.
But, once again, the warmer and wetter a place is, the more biodiversity it will have; tropical rainforests are the center of biodiversity on the planet, not PNW temperate rainforests, not deserts, not prairies. The Southeastern US from East Texas to Florida, up to Virginia is closer to exhibiting tropical rainforest conditions than any other region in the CONUS.
That's not true at all, if anything it's the opposite. The Southeast has been settled far longer and by far more people than the western US early on. It's more densely populated as well with less areas of vast, empty wilderness. You literally just made that excuse up and it has absolutely no basis at all.
Sure it may be closer but that doesn't mean it's close at all especially to the point where you trying to draw some sort of parallel between the biodiversity in tropical rain forests and the Southeastern US. FACT of the matter is the Southeastern states are not anymore biodiverse than western states no matter what excuses you try to come up with.
He grew up living in the Mobile basin in the Gulf coast in Alabama before moving to Harvard and gaining fame as the author of "Sociobiology " and many other works. The Mobile basin in Alabama, America's Amazon, is the most biodiverse area in the united states and one the richest in terms of the number of species and types in habitat in the entire world
He is a fascinating scholar , one of the few american giants in academia
That's not true at all, if anything it's the opposite. The Southeast has been settled far longer and by far more people than the western US early on. It's more densely populated as well with less areas of vast, empty wilderness. You literally just made that excuse up and it has absolutely no basis at all.
This falls under what I was saying; naturalists from the US were looking for great wilderness areas to study, and the environments in the West represented a stark transition for them compared to the settled, used East. There were all those wild canyons and topography, giving naturalists great places to start. Thus, they were eager to study all the organisms in those Western areas, and record it to the books. On the other hand, the South's wilderness areas, since it was largely settled, and people were more familiar with it overall, did not get studied much. With much of the region not having wild topography of the West, naturalists wouldn't get obvious, easy areas to start catalogs compared to the West. Furthermore, you had a lot of private ownership (not open to the public), and such settlements did indeed alter pristine habitats. Many organisms the South had are gone from the region (or restricted in their distribution from their former range): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_parakeet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_monk_seal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_cougar
Thus, there may be, in fact, a critical mass of biodiversity from the South not being covered, due to reasons mentioned above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Sure it may be closer but that doesn't mean it's close at all especially to the point where you trying to draw some sort of parallel between the biodiversity in tropical rain forests and the Southeastern US. FACT of the matter is the Southeastern states are not anymore biodiverse than western states no matter what excuses you try to come up with.
Once again:
Biodiversity ∝ warmth and wetness
This is a fact illustrated by tropical rainforests all over the world. The Coastal South has such factors to a degree not seen in the rest of the CONUS. To underscore this point, many tropical organisms from the Caribbean and Central/South America have natural ranges extending to the South (American Ibis, Jacanas, Anhingas, leaf-cutter ants, Anolis Lizards, flamingos, jaguars, ocelots, reef-building corals, mangroves, montezuma cypress, mahogany, gumbo-limbo, strangler-fig, etc). Even tropical organisms not naturally found in the region end up thriving (fire ants, killer bees, water hyacinth, Burmese pythons, Brazillian Pepper trees, monkeys, etc).
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.
http://traverse.us.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Maritime-forest-Hunting-Is-SP-SC-09.jpg
