Talk:Temperate rainforest

Animals and Plants
This article needs information about the animals and the plants that are in this biome. Temperate Rainforest should not be just about the trees in it, but include the living organisms in it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdy9814 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Snow
I think in some of the forests, depending on lattitude. But the snow doesn't last as long, and it probably does not penetrate to the forest floors most of the time.

When you say southwestern Japan where do you mean? I live there, (Fukuoka). Are bamboo forests temperate rain forests? Or are you talking about further south in Kagoshima? Andycjp 3rd August 2005

The enclaves of warm temperate rainforest in Kagoshima and Yakushima are probably the best examples. Tom Radulovich 06:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fukuoka is too cold for a temperate rainforest.

Would the mountain mixed forests of Taiwan such as Mount Ali or Yushan Park be considered like temperate rainforests, or montane temperate rainforests? Some of these forests have lots of ferns...and stuff. Taiwan's mountains have some huge old-growth cypress trees. I think southwestern Japan has these too.

Would the mountain mixed forests in the Himalayan Mountains and Sichuan be considered in this category too?

How about New Zealand's North Island Kauri forests?


 * Remember, temperate simply means "with four seasons" - in it's original use. Thus, all regions not tropical and not polar are temperate - if we are to use the original definition. It certainly can snow in temperate rain forests, but they are rarely or never extremely cold, because they are located near temperate oceans. The interior of the continents, although at the same latitude, might experience extreme winter temperatures, and these interior areas are much drier, with no rainforests - but often with forest. Orcaborealis 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of temperate rain forest
As a biologist, chemist and resident of the Northwestern U.S. (with a considerable amount of geography, geology and meteorology under my belt, formally studied) I strongly disagree that temperate rain forests are defined with proximity to the ocean as a requirement. No mention of the sea is in the term 'temperate rain forest.' A temperate rain forest, according to the USGS, National Geographic Society and several English language dictionaries is simply a forest that is 1) a rainforest and 2) temperate --having four or more seasons, not tropical nor polar; in the middle latitudes. According to the precip requirement at this wikipedia listing, several forests in Montana would be considered temperate rain forests; 2,000 mm (200 cm) is the same as 78 inches of precipitation/year. Several forests in Montana, Northern Idaho and the interior of British Columbia (as well as Washington and Oregon; not only is the Olympic Forest a temperate rainforest in WA) meet this requirement, with 80 to 100 or more inches of precipitation yearly. For example, please see the map at

http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/MT/mt.gif

These forests are also 'temperate' in the more specific geographic and climactic connotations of the word (mentioned above) as well as temperate in the less specific, more colloquial 'mild summers and winters' sense of the word. Giant cedar trees, covered in moss and surrounded by ferns grow in these very wet, mild forests of Montana. Glacier National Park is well known for having this vegetation (as well as 1,000 species of plants and other eco zones). The giant cedar forests of NW Montana and the proximal forests of Northern Idaho and SE B.C. are never or rarely very cold. The Pacific Ocean moderates their climates, although they are not proximal to the sea. Also, parts of Japan, especially from the Kansai south and westward are not temperate rain forests but are subtropical. Camphor trees and other subtropical plants grow, especially at lower latitudes. These are subtropical broadleaf (but not deciduous) forests. It does not snow in Kumamoto. In sum, not all of Japan is temperate rain forest as the incorrect map suggests, and, more of the U.S.--including more of Washington, California, and Oregon as well as parts of B.C, Montana and Idaho--are actually temperate rain forest. Making distance to large bodies of salt water a deciding factor in this delineation of 'temperate rain forest' is too restrictive and illogical.
 * Great post. Let's start getting some good references --Duk 01:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is an abundance of rain in the growing season, a rainforest can grow further from the ocean. This might be the case in areas in the USA, as mentioned above, even if winters are pretty cold. In the Russian far east (around Ussuri, near Vladivostok) is an area with high rainfall in summer due to persistent onshore winds and fairly warm summers, but very dry and cold winters (something like an average of -12 Celsius in mid-winter). Orcaborealis 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Great Smoky Mountains a temperate rainforest? ~200 cm avg annual rainfall Sushirabbit 20:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an asumption in dealing with north western Europe that the current state of vegetation limits its classification as "temperate rain forest". However, it can clearly be argued that an ability to sustain such as climax vegetation defines the area better than human useage. Wales should, thus, carry the definition as having a temperate rain forest climate and the potential to be restored to such vegetation. This could be extended to other areas of the globe.

Some TRF's are in subtropical climate areas, such as the California coast, SW Japan, the mountains of Taiwan, Tristan da Cunha, SE Australia, and areas of New Zealand's North Island. Examples of both coniferous and deciduous TRF's exist around the world. Heff01 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The section in the article shows two contrasting definitions, but which is used for the map? this should be made clear 91.135.10.170 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern US and other possible TRF's
I'm from eastern Pennsylvania and am unaware of the Pocono temperate rain forest. What specific areas should I look in? I could buy the possibility of TRF in areas of the Great Smoky Mountains and SW Virginia. Also, we should look towards the western Alps, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the southern ocean islands of Tristan da Cunha, Gough Island, the Prince Edward Islands, the French Southern Territories, and New Zealand's outlying southern islands for other areas of possible TRF. Is there documentation for the TRF areas in the northeast US? Heff01 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the TRF map and saw areas on the south side of the Himalayas, the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea, the north coast of Spain, the Dinaric Alps, and SE China that are not yet discussed in the article. Heff01 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I did further research on the southern ocean islands and found that the Prince Edward Islands and the French Southern Territories have no forests, despite very high rainfall totals, due to the harsh windy conditions, terrain, and great distances for flora to spread from Africa, Asia, and Australia. There is the strong possibility of New Zealand's outlying southern islands having TRF's, since the flora only needs to spread 300-400 miles from South Island or 1000 miles from Tasmania. Ocean currents and the prevailing westerlies could have transported forests from Tasmania long before these islands were discovered by man.

I knew that Pennsylvania has no TRF, because no place there averages more than 60 inches of rain a year. Although the highest mountain shadows of northern New England have very high totals, that doesn't mean that TRF's exist there. Keep in mind how cold the climate is there, how much of the precipitation is snow, that the snow cover persists the majority of the year, and winds are strong, particularly on Mount Washington (the only mountain in the US east of the Rocky Mountains with alpine tundra.) Heff01 00:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a citation for the north coast of Spain, especially as defined in the map in the article? Fragas do Eume appears to be temperate rainforest, but what about the whole north coast? I can't find anything discussing northern Spain beyond Fragas do Eume. NegaNexus (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Northeastern U.S. TRFs? U.S. Gulf Coast?
I'm from Connecticut, but have spent a lot of time in Vermont and New Hampshire, including making many treks up Mt. Washington. I would say that not all of the highest elevations that receive at least 2000mm of rainfall contain solely alpine tundra. On Mt. Washington, the treeline is just above 4000 feet, with alpine tundra on the top 2,000 or so feet of the mountain. However, about 30 miles south of Mt Washington is another range of the White Mountains that overlooks Franconia Notch. These mountains are generally between 4000 and 5000 feet with the higher elevations receiving precipitation that meets the criteria for temperate rainforests to thrive. Unlike Mt. Washington, the mountains around Franconia Notch have trees and various other vegetation going all the way to their summits.

The Green Mountains of Vermont range between 3000 and 4000 feet in elevation, and some of the highese elevations here also receive enough annual precipitation to support temperate rainforests.

Summers are generally warm to occasionally hot in Vermont and New Hampshire, and winters are cold and snowy; there are four distinct seasons in these regions which also fulfills another prerequisite for temperate rainforests.

Another important factor is that most of the weather systems that track across the United States converge on New England, which is why this region has a reputation for having some of the worst weather in the world.

Shifting south to the Gulf Coast I noticed looking at climatology maps for Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana that annual precipitation in the southern portions of these states comes very close to the 2000 mm required for temperate rainforests, and the areas are indeed thickly forested with a variety of primarily evergreen species. With the Gulf coast being far enough south to have more of a subtropical influence, how would we treat this region? Wxstorm 07:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, some TRF's are in subtropical climates. None of the three states that you metioned have areas of annual precipitation greater than the 1700's in mm, and none of them are near mountains. They are on the Gulf Coastal Plain. How about Newfoundland? Heff01 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

British Columbia's Interior Wetbelt
The Columbian Mountains of British Columbia also have inland temperate coniferous rainforests and should also be discussed here. The difference is perhaps the climate is more continental with a large proportion of the precipitation being snow. Mammalian fauna resembles that of the Canadian Rocky Mountains, but with some of the same species as in the Pacific Northwest. User:dlc_73 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Improvements
This subject on temperate rain forests is an interesting one, because there are so many of these locations and yet, books and photographs of many of these places are hard to find. Perhaps those of you who are from Chile, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, or Taiwan should collect or look out for nice coffee table books.

I share the same sentiments regarding mapping of temperate rainforests, because in reality the largest and most mapable forest stretches are the Pacific Northwest Temperate Rainforests from Southeastern Alaska to Central California. I guess you could also map British Columbia's interior inland rain forests of the Columbian Mountains too. These forests, however get much summer rain and heavy snowfall.

The majority of temperate rain forests outside western North America are patchy and it becomes unclear as to whether we are properly discerning actual temperate rain forests from moist/wet deciduous forests or even moist/wet coniferous forests that have much understory and could have many ferns. One cannot color all of Japan as temperate rain forest because these occur in mostly southern/western Japan and facing the Pacific Ocean. A good example of map is found in National Parks of Japan book.

Also, Korea is mostly mixed deciduous forest, one should not color the entire peninsula as rain forest. Manchuria/Ussuri has patches of moist forest, but not necessarily temperate rain forest. The Changbai Mountains bordering China and North Korea do have some of the richest coniferous forests in East Asia. However, one has to discern from moist coniferous and coniferous rain forest conditions.

Chile does have the Magellanic-Valdivian temperate rain forests, but these are stricly on the west coast of the Andes that flank the Pacific Ocean. Inland, these forests are actually deciduous forests of lenga, nirre, and other deciduous southern beech forests. On the Argentina side...and even on the Chilean border with Argentina, these Andean forests are largely open, deciduous forests, and patagonian steppe. New Zealand's temperate rain forests are mostly on the Central and Western parts of North and South Islands, the rest of the land is either high mountains, mountain steppe, or dry tussock grasslands.

Taiwan does have old growth coniferous forests in South/Central Area...but only around Yushan and Jade Mountain. Other biomes include mountain grassland, decidous forests, etc. So in all most of these temperate rain forests outside of Pacific Northwest are patchy and perhaps too small to reflect properly on a world map. These forests are similar to the Taiheiyo Evergreen Forests of Japan.

I used to have this book on Yushan (Jade Mountain) from Taiwan, although the text was mostly in Mandarin Chinese, the photographs were wonderful. I do have a poster from Taiwan's Tourist Bureau, of an oldgrowth cypress tree taken from either Alishan (Mount Ali) or Yushan (Jade Mountain).

I have books on old growth forests of North America's Pacific Northwest Coast (including redwood forests), New Zealand, Chile-Patagonia, and Japan. I have one book on Norway's Fjordland that has like one picture of the dense coniferous rain forest.

I have added an excerpt on the Columbian Mountains (British Columbia's inland rain forest), and got confirmation from biologists at Mount Revelstoke National Park that yes, there are some banana slugs in those forests too. However, much of the forests west of Alberta and Montana's Glacier National Park are considered Northern Rocky Mountains forests that are mostly moist coniferous forests with species such as Western larch, Douglas-fir, Pacific Yew, Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, and Western White Pine. Yes, there is an inland rain forest belt that occurs in Columbia Mountains, but this does not mean the entire area is inland rain forest.

I would like to see more photos from Chile, Norway, New Zealand, Colchian-Turkey, Japan, and Taiwan.

User:dlc_73 9:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not show on the map in the article, but there is an area along the coast of mid-Norway (63-66 N) that, much like the Alaskan panhandle, has spruce dominated forest with the same climatic condintions - mild winters, always moist, a lot of rain, even more than 2,000 mm annually. And, they have a lichen flora unlike any other forest in Europe, but many of the lichens are found in the conifer rainforest along the northwest coast of North Amerika. Around 250 remaining areas of forest, most of them small. This pdf presentation from WWF (Panda) is in English and has a map: Norways conifer rainforest. Orcaborealis (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

POV problems
As per my changes in the Temperate rain forest regions/Pacific temperate rain forests of western North America and associated edit comments, this article is biased towards the WWF ecoregion system and makes little mention of other major systems; I've added comparisons to the CEC/EPA system and also specified taht these are ecoregions, not tangible usages of specific forests (e.g. Okanogan National Forest, Sherwood Forest) etc. There is a clear and present problem across ecoregion-oriented articles to pre-empt general usages such as (ahem) "temperate rainforest" to content only related to the WWF system; this was in fact a clear statement of goals on WikiProject Ecoregions, which I hope has been taken out since I pointed out how POV it was. This article needs a major rewrite, at least to the point of comparing/contrasting other systems nad rewriting the language so it doesn't sound like the classifications listed/described are the only ones there are, or that they're in general usage; the WWF would like them to be in general usage, but this is dishonest and POV in wikipedia terms. I don't have time to overhaul this whole article but I'm hoping my changes in the referred-to section will serve as a guide to others. Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure, and especially it shouldn't be advrtising for a particularly campaign/ideology. There's way too much "fuzziness" in ecoregion sources as it is; Wikipedia shouldnt' just ape biased and questionable content....e.g. of the kind claiming this is the most diverse ecoregion on the planet.......GEEZ' I woulda thought that would be the Amazon, huh? Just because some blurb somehwere says something doesn't mean it's true.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See comparable changes on Pacific Maritime Ecozone (CEC). Wouldn't it be nice if all ecology people actually spoke the same language? ;-| Skookum1 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly a sidenote, but the American definition (at least 1400 mm precip/year and at least 4 degress Celsius mean annual temperature), if used along the Norwegian coast, would give temperate rainforest 200 km north of the Arctic circle: Vågan/Svolvær in Lofoten has mean annual temperature 4.7 degrees Celsius, while precipitation in 3 out of 4 places is above 1,500 mm, and up to 2,500 mm, as seen here (1961 - 1990 average). The wettest place is probably where the mountains meet the westerlies. Another location: Glomfjord in Nordland, right at the Arctic circle (men annual temperature 5 Celsius and annual precipitation 2,069 mm ). Near Brønnøysund (mean annual 5.6 C and precipitation 1,400 mm to 2,100 mm ) at least two areas have been defined as rainforest and are protected .Orcaborealis (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Rainforest or rain forest?
Let's get our story straight. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Temperate rainforest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6E8TaBIav?url=http://www.inforain.org/rainforestatlas/rainforestatlas_page2.html to http://www.inforain.org/rainforestatlas/rainforestatlas_page2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718173307/http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/yaku.html to http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/yaku.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121209114727/http://www.inforain.org/rainforestatlas/ to http://www.inforain.org/rainforestatlas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Boreal Rainforests
Currently, Boreal rainforest redirects to Scandinavian coastal conifer forests, which gives the false impression that boreal rainforests only exist in Norway. Wikipedia has a lack of information about this distinct type of rainforest, and I think that it should be added as a new page, because they are considered separate from temperate rainforests (at least in the paper I linked before). However, he line between temperate and boreal rainforests is blurry. I don't have a great amount of knowledge in climatology though, so I couldn't write a very in-depth article about it. I might write a short article to spread knowledge of it and promote more information being added in the future. Towelbin (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)