Physiographic Maps of Canada

[MonctonRad]

Here are a few interesting maps of Canada based on vegetation and landforms. I found this on the Spacing.ca website:











the URL of the accompanying article is http://spacing.ca/national/2015/06/0...da-cover-type/

[SignalHillHiker]

Very nice. I'm surprised by the amount of deciduous forests we have. I know a few areas where they occur naturally but mostly they seem to be an urban introduction. Surprised by the weakness of the colouring for our coniferous forests - but that makes sense given the strength of the wetland covering (it's all moorlands and peat bogs and the like).

Fascinating stuff, MonctonRad.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Very nice. I'm surprised by the amount of deciduous forests we have. I know a few areas where they occur naturally but mostly they seem to be an urban introduction.

The "leaves" map must include shrubs...

Also, the "needles" map is obviously incorrect for southern Quebec. Looking at the first two maps, it's all deciduous with no conifers at all.

While those two maps represent pretty correctly for this area what would be the long-term stable result of ecological succession (a mostly Sugar Maple + American Beech forest cover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beech-maple_forest ) as well as the state the first Europeans found the land (... this is just saying the exact same thing in different words) it doesn't accurately show what's currently growing there. There are many, many areas that have been replanted with conifers for economical reasons, or that have been cut more or less recently and, left to their own devices, are currently a mix of birch, aspen, spruce, and balsam fir (all of those grow faster than maple, oak, etc.)

Clearly, showing zero conifers (total lack of dots) in some areas where I'm very familiar with the current forest cover, it's not accurate.

Edit: those maps are very interesting, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining too much

[Denscity]

Funny that BC is all or nothing in every map. It's different out here.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by lio45

The "leaves" map must include shrubs...

Also, the "needles" map is obviously incorrect for southern Quebec. Looking at the first two maps, it's all deciduous with no conifers at all.

While those two maps represent pretty correctly for this area what would be the long-term stable result of ecological succession (a mostly Sugar Maple + American Beech forest cover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beech-maple_forest ) as well as the state the first Europeans found the land (... this is just saying the exact same thing in different words) it doesn't accurately show what's currently growing there. There are many, many areas that have been replanted with conifers for economical reasons, or that have been cut more or less recently and, left to their own devices, are currently a mix of birch, aspen, spruce, and balsam fir (all of those grow faster than maple, oak, etc.)

Clearly, showing zero conifers (total lack of dots) in some areas where I'm very familiar with the current forest cover, it's not accurate.

Edit: those maps are very interesting, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining too much

The source sites didn't say exactly how the maps were constructed, but it looks to me like it's probably a density-based illustration, so mixed forests may be represented by the most dominant tree type even if the blend is actually more balanced. I.e., the maps are at a 250m resolution, so perhaps each 250m square is assigned coniferous or deciduous... if you have a large area that's 55% leafy trees, the other 45% that would still be visually prominent at ground level just doesn't show on the map very much and the entire region looks like its dominated by deciduous forests. Same thing is probably true for the other vegetation types.

It would be great to be able to zoom in on them too. At this broad scale, the maps are very interesting, but only good enough to illustrate general patterns.

[middeljohn]

The clear cutting in South Western Ontario saddens me.

[rousseau]

Deciduous forests in northern Ontario? I had no idea. I'd thought there was a line running across southern Ontario just north of Toronto where the deciduous Carolinian Forest petered out and the coniferous trees took over. You see it when you drive up north, e.g. once you get past Guelph the trees are coniferous all of a sudden and the vegetation changes.

A simple drive from anywhere along the Lake Erie shore to the northern part of southern Ontario takes you out of the Carolinian Forest and into coniferous country. So this map is confusing to me.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Deciduous forests in northern Ontario? I had no idea. I'd thought there was a line running across southern Ontario just north of Toronto where the deciduous Carolinian Forest petered out and the coniferous trees took over. You see it when you drive up north, e.g. once you get past Guelph the trees are coniferous all of a sudden and the vegetation changes.

A simple drive from anywhere along the Lake Erie shore to the northern part of southern Ontario takes you out of the Carolinian Forest and into coniferous country. So this map is confusing to me.

rousseau: Carolinian Forest is a particular type of deciduous forest that has its northern limit in southern Ontario, but deciduous trees are found well to the north of that. Maple trees, for example, are not a Carolinian Forest species, as far as I know. As you move north, conifers become more prevalent, but deciduous trees extend up into the boreal forest.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Deciduous forests in northern Ontario? I had no idea. I'd thought there was a line running across southern Ontario just north of Toronto where the deciduous Carolinian Forest petered out and the coniferous trees took over. You see it when you drive up north, e.g. once you get past Guelph the trees are coniferous all of a sudden and the vegetation changes.

A simple drive from anywhere along the Lake Erie shore to the northern part of southern Ontario takes you out of the Carolinian Forest and into coniferous country. So this map is confusing to me.

FYI.
Quaking Aspen (first) and White Birch (second) native ranges.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

rousseau: Carolinian Forest is a particular type of deciduous forest that has its northern limit in southern Ontario, but deciduous trees are found well to the north of that. Maple trees, for example, are not a Carolinian Forest species, as far as I know. As you move north, conifers become more prevalent, but deciduous trees extend up into the boreal forest.

Maple stops relatively quickly as you go north compared to the two "staple nordic hardwoods" referenced in the post above.

[eemy]

Those are really interesting maps. It really illustrates how many of the characteristic northern species extend further south in the central part of Canada than toward either coast. You would see a similar pattern if you looked at a geological map of Canada. I like to think that north is further south here than on the coasts.

[SignalHillHiker]

The most recent plant hardiness and extreme minimum maps from the government. These are the main factors that determine what can grow where - but there are lots of others, of course. Soil depth, acidity, wind, etc.

[MonctonRad]

It depresses me to think that by-the-books, Moncton is actually located in one of the milder parts of Canada, especially given how brutal our winters can be around here.

It just serves to reinforce how climatically, Canada is hanging on by a thread as a viable nation state.

Just think - a drop of a couple of degrees Celsius and the ice sheets advance and Canada will cease to exist..........

We'd be almost as bad off as the Vikings were in Greenland during the little ice age in the medieval period. Look at what happened to them!!

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The most recent plant hardiness and extreme minimum maps from the government. These are the main factors that determine what can grow where - but there are lots of others, of course. Soil depth, acidity, wind, etc.

Looks like you could grow pineapples in Victoria.

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Looks like you could grow pineapples in Victoria.

Zoomed in on SW BC:


Source Natural Resources Canada - Canada's Plant Hardiness Zones interactive mapper - http://gmaps.nrcan.gc.ca/laasmapper....es%201981-2010

[lio45]

Careful with hardiness zones, all they tell you is what will get killed by the cold there. They don't represent at all what can grow where.

Case in point, southwestern coastal Ireland is hardiness zone 10, just like Los Angeles and Miami. "Southwestern Ireland: even more pineapple-friendly than Victoria, BC!".

You can't grow the same kind of tropical vegetation outside on the SW coast of Ireland than you could in Miami, but the "record-frost-might-kill-it-if-I-plant-this-thing-so-I-can't" cutoff point is exactly the same for both places. (Something like -2°C.)

A few years ago it froze in Miami during the Christmas vacation, remember that? I think it was 2010...

So. If it can withstand -2°C, it's basically guaranteed to survive even the very coldest possible Southeastern Florida/Southwestern Ireland winter day outside. If it can't, then it can't.

That's all the info the zones tell us. It's not much, as evidenced by the fact that the natural vegetation in these hardiness zones 10 is incredibly different.

[Loco101]

I live in Timmins, ON which is in zone 2b. We are quite limited in what we can grow.

But look at the difference within Ontario! From say Leamington to Peawanuck on Hudson Bay. And remember that there is little elevation difference as Ontario doesn't have mountains.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It depresses me to think that by-the-books, Moncton is actually located in one of the milder parts of Canada, especially given how brutal our winters can be around here.

It just serves to reinforce how climatically, Canada is hanging on by a thread as a viable nation state.

Just think - a drop of a couple of degrees Celsius and the ice sheets advance and Canada will cease to exist..........

We'd be almost as bad off as the Vikings were in Greenland during the little ice age in the medieval period. Look at what happened to them!!

You can pretty much say that about most countries.

Life as we know it survives on the very edge of death everywhere. There are very few spots where things are really that cushy.

Because we're over absorbed in an american-european perspective Canadians tend to be big downers about our own weather.

The reality is large parts of 0africa, eastern europe, and asia are very much in the same boat as us. A slight temperature change, or a little bit less water and everything falls apart. This is also part of the reason people get freaked out about climate change.

Were an industrial society with the exception of no water or permafrost climate really is overstated.

Most places in the world have six month periods where drought, extreme cold or heat are common it's a fact of the planet. Only a small fraction of the planet stays remotely close to room temperature year round, and those places are typically over populated with little available space for nature.

[vid]

Definitely lots of deciduous trees in Northern Ontario. Anywhere that has been clear cut loses its pines and spruce and they get replaced by hardier, faster growing aspen.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Careful with hardiness zones, all they tell you is what will get killed by the cold there. They don't represent at all what can grow where.

Actually that is true of the USDA hardiness zones but not the Environment Canada zones. If you look carefully at the two maps, you'll see that the hardiness zones don't match the annual minimum temperatures. Newfoundland's south coast is tied with Windsor for annual minimum, for example, but it has the same hardiness zone as Ottawa.