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.
Yeah, it would also exclude the climates that I think are most unambiguously subtropical because they closely border actual tropical climates. Such as say Orlando or Durban. And limit the category to dubiously subtropical climates that are much further removed from true tropical climates.
Personally I would reorganize Koppen's C category, partitioning his Cfa and Cfb categories to separate out the climates that are too cool to support significant winter plant growth from those that are warm enough year round for plant growth. In the northern hemisphere that would roughly separate deciduous from evergreen broadleaf forest climates. In the southern hemisphere the evolution of trees and shrubs has followed a different path and you'd have to look more at plant growth and dormancy than deciduous/evergreen. For example to me Paris is much more like New York ecologically than either is like Durban.
What to do with the rump cool/cold C climates, probably expand the D climate zone to be more than strongly continental climates but instead be broadly winter-dormant climates.
I do think it would be helpful for a transitional category, and the lower limit would be around -3C as that’s when a permanent snow cover takes place, and the upper limit would be the temperature that would allow plants to grow in winter, not sure that would be 5C? 10C? So this transitional category would be for climates that have a dormant winter season, but without consistent snow cover, but still experiences snow quite regularly.
I do think it would be helpful for a transitional category, and the lower limit would be around -3C as that’s when a permanent snow cover takes place, and the upper limit would be the temperature that would allow plants to grow in winter, not sure that would be 5C? 10C? So this transitional category would be for climates that have a dormant winter season, but without consistent snow cover, but still experiences snow quite regularly.
I do think it would be helpful for a transitional category, and the lower limit would be around -3C as that’s when a permanent snow cover takes place, and the upper limit would be the temperature that would allow plants to grow in winter, not sure that would be 5C? 10C? So this transitional category would be for climates that have a dormant winter season, but without consistent snow cover, but still experiences snow quite regularly.
Do you think places like Seattle would be a prime candidate to fit into this transitional category? there is winter dormancy but little snow cover.
Don't you think it's more valuable to consider what the dominant vegetation pattern is in a region rather than looking at a few outlier species planted there by zone pushers?
Well both southern Indiana and central Indiana the dominant vegetation was deciduous forest, so if that’s true then Indianapolis would also be Cfa in climate, but I think you and I both know Indianapolis isn’t Cfa, it’s obviously Dfa,when using that logic, but, I think everyone knows that crape myrtles and cold hardy palm trees wouldn’t stand a chance in central Indiana, whereas in southern Indiana and northern Kentucky they can be grown more or less reliably with a little extra care and protection. Even the cold hardiest varieties of southern magnolia tend to suffer leaf burn here in the Indianapolis area many winters, whereas you can see in places such as Louisville, they have rows of southern magnolia trees lining the Kentucky turnpike, and I have only seen a handful of southern magnolia trees here or there in central Indiana, the majority having been planted since the late 90’s, when Indianapolis winters begin to “Soften” in severity enough to allow cold hardy magnolia grandiflora trees to survive here, so I know central Indiana is obviously not a Cfa climate, unlike southern Indiana and Kentucky which are borderline Cfa, so obviously your logic is skewed by those so called “Zone-Pushers”
Do you think places like Seattle would be a prime candidate to fit into this transitional category? there is winter dormancy but little snow cover.
Yes I agree, however Seattle would be towards the warmer end of this category as there is some vegetative growth in winter, but overall most plants are dormant and stereotypical subtropical plants such as citrus and most palms can’t survive our winters consistently, and I think our winter experience relates more to a winter in say Boston (which fits in this category too) than with a place such as San Francisco or New Orleans.
Also I would get rid of the B category and assign it as subtropical and this transitional climate would be labeled as C (temperate) and if a climate is arid or semi arid it would be denoted by the second variable.
Last edited by grega94; 04-12-2020 at 05:02 PM..
Reason: Mixed up the order of variables
Well what subtropical plants are you talking about?
My point is more of Palms can survive in Seattle, while subtropical areas can actually *grow* more during the growing season.
It's not like Palms are native to Seattle, they have to be grown in special conditions, then planted, and then cared for. Which is true in Atlanta too.
Subtropical is pretty simple to me. Areas that get the summer heat of the tropics, but have regular freezes that end the growing season.
Many oceanic climates either don't have the regular freezes or even have warmer annual minima, but they lack the summer heat.
To take it to an extreme, Lerwick has warmer Jan lows than Atlanta. But the summer temps are more in line with late Fall, Winter, and early Spring in Atlanta. A time when our largest trees have lost their leaves and before they come back in the spring. It's too cold for them to actually grow and develop until highs are regularly topping 70.
Most palms besides palms like mexican palms can't even grow in San Diego without help. Some bananas but no coconuts. Nothing like Hawaii or Cuba.
Most palms besides palms like mexican palms can't even grow in San Diego without help. Some bananas but no coconuts. Nothing like Hawaii or Cuba.
There are over 3000 different species of palms, hundreds, if not more, different palms can be grown in southern California. Coconut palms are tropical, but even they can grow grow in warmer subtropical areas, there are one or two even in some warm micro-climates in California.
Obviously Hawaii & Cuba can grow more tropical palms, but California is a palm paradise compared to most places.
That seems like a very narrow view of things to me. It excludes vast areas of the world that are generally considered subtropical.
Maybe not regular freezes, but certainly a pronounced cool season.
For Humid Subtropical there are plenty of areas around the world that fit this. Even Europe like Tirana.
What's subtropical to you? And this thread is humid subtropical which is why I'm not considering drier climates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed's Mountain
Don't you think it's more valuable to consider what the dominant vegetation pattern is in a region rather than looking at a few outlier species planted there by zone pushers?
I agree with this. There's too much focus on non native vegetation. My grad school in Pennsylvania had a Magnolia tree of all things on campus. But just one.
Personally I don't like palms in Atlanta. They look too out of place. We are firmly in a mixed forest area where palms aren't gonna grow randomly in nature on their own.
Do you think places like Seattle would be a prime candidate to fit into this transitional category? there is winter dormancy but little snow cover.
There's some winter dormancy in Seattle, but there's also plenty of winter growth. Native broadleaf evergreens like madrone and manzanita don't go dormant. Grass stays green and continues to grow except during unusual cold snaps. A few plants are in flower every month. I'd say Seattle gets something like a semi-dormant season, but not a full dormancy. If you go to northern Kentucky midwinter there is literally nothing growing. The landscape is completely dead. It's a big big difference.
There's some winter dormancy in Seattle, but there's also plenty of winter growth. Native broadleaf evergreens like madrone and manzanita don't go dormant. Grass stays green and continues to grow except during unusual cold snaps. A few plants are in flower every month. I'd say Seattle gets something like a semi-dormant season, but not a full dormancy. If you go to northern Kentucky midwinter there is literally nothing growing. The landscape is completely dead. It's a big big difference.
Interesting... it's hard to tell if the broadleaf evergreens like madrones go dormant or not. I always assumed they did and maybe only started growing during a warm spell in winter.
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.
