Talk:Ecology of the North Cascades

Moving

Thanks Hike for moving my information from ALW to Ecology of North Cascades. I think it fit more appropriately. However, some of the information was very specific to the ALW. Looks great. Thanks Jsaltz (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything that you see that is wrong? —hike395 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Hike. There are only minor adjustments. For example, alpine regions are >5000->7000 feet in elevation. Where the Alpine Lakes Land Management Plan states that the alpine starts around 6000 feet in elevation in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. I can go through it after Wednesday, finals week. Both sites look really great! Thanks again for your help. Jsaltz (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ponderosa Pine ecoregion not part of North Cascades

I took a careful look at the eastern WA ecoregion map by Warren Gold [1] and the EPA map of the North Cascades [2], and I see that there's no overlap between the Ponderosa Pine ecoregion and the North Cascades as defined by the EPA. This matches my intuition: I don't recall Ponderosa Pine forests in my visits to the eastern slope of the North Cascades. Therefore, I removed the Ponderosa Pine section from the article. —hike395 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In my research on the Alpine Lakes Wilderness it stated in the Alpine Lakes Land Management Plan that the Ponderosa Pine region was on the fringes of the eastern boundaries of the ALW. However, I don't know that relationship to the boundaries of the North Cascades. Jsaltz (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is one maybe from the WWF system and the other from the EPA/CEC system? Other than that I'll check the biogeocliamtic zones of BC map (different system again) and the CEC/Envirnoment Canada one (which corresponds to the EPA one). There are pine forests on the leeward side of the Canadian cascades/ but those may be are lodgepole or ??Skookum1 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pinus ponderosa is the main species found in the Ponderosa Pine region in Oregon, e.g., west of Sisters, Oregon but its range includes British Columbia (File:Pondssp.png). In the Wenatchee Mountains and northward, it occurs as a minor component of forests dominated by other species, I think. Pinus contorta is found throughout Cascade Range forests.Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed reference (1) to point to the CEC north american map (rather than the EPA US map), to avoid US-centricity. Looks like the CEC/EPA definition doesn't stretch much beyond the Fraser River. I am still researching to see whether a Ponderosa-dominant forest is part of the eastern North Cascades in Canada. I doubt it, though --- the ecology doesn't change that much going over the Canadian border from Twisp and Methow, and those aren't Ponderosa dominant. Looks like the Okanogan Valley and the Thompson-Okanogan Plateau are ecoregions that are distinct from the North Cascades, so we don't have to worry about dryland/prairie ecoregions in this article. —hike395 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of article

Well, I think you shoulder consider that the article-title should be North Cascades (EPA ecoregion) to avoid confusion, with North Cascades (CEC ecoregion) a redirect to it, since the mountain-series North Cascades article combines with the Canadian Cascades, which is a redirect to it; but with geology and ecology etc. the part of the Canadian Cascades that corresponds to the North Cascades is mostly the Skagit Range, and the southern Hozameen Range...I suppose the Okanagan Range as well. BUT the so-called Coquihalla Range (so-called because that's an unofficial name) and the Anderson River Group and up towards Lytton Mountain - that's very different geology, very different ecology. I'll have to look at your CEC map about the so-called Thompson-Okanagan Plateau (geographically there's the Thompson Plateau and Okanagan Highland, which sounds like one of the occasions where ecoregion-namers have coined new terms to overlay on top of the geographic toponymy, often confusingly. Anyway North Cascades (CEC ecoregion) and North Cacades (EPA ecoregion) do not correspond boundary=wise with the North Cascades as geographically defined....I've been wondering for a while now how to deal with this, i.e. the parallel distinction and overlap between the North Cascades and the Cascade Mountains-as-defined-by-Canada. BTW in colloquial use "Canadian Cascades" tends to mean the Skagit Range, while "Cascades" and "Cascade Mountains" is used for the flank of hte Fraser Canyon and the Manning-Cathedral area...."harmonizing cross-border ecoregons" is something gonna take some ironing out and care with titles, it's why I'm suggesting this be given the dabbed ecoregion title; otehrwise Ecology of the Canadian Cascades includes areas not in the EPA/CEC "North Cascades".....easier to just have them written up as ecoregion-series articles/titles; I've forgotten the corresponding WWF ecoregions in this area, which of course haev different titles, not sure if they use the name North Cascades, don't think so....Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the map, or did so a while ago today anyway; Thompson-Okanogan Plateau (CEC ecoregion) I'll try and pen up later; maybe it's called an Ecozone in Canada, I'm not quite sure; it's odd to me in its general boundary but with the sub-ecoregions inside of it that may account for some of the alpine/wetter areas included in it; conversely for Chilcotin Ranges and Fraser Plateau (CEC ecoregion) there are dryland areas of that that should be in the same ecoregion IMO as much of what's in the T-O. Also to note how "curious" it is that the CEC uses the American spelling "Okanogan" for an ecoregion that's near-entirely in Canada. At least they've got Columbia Mountains/Northern Rockies (CEC ecoregion) labelled bi-nationally. And yes, the North Cascades ecoregion does include teh Okanagan and Hozameen Ranges, with the Coquihalla/Lytton-Kanaka area in the T-O region, somewhat rightly althoguh the southwest corner of that, just northwest of Hope, is pretty clearly more similar to the North Cascades in climate and biome....I'll compare/contrast these with WWF and BCForests regions later on....Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that there are two separate issues: 1) whether to inform our readers of the differences in boundary between the North Cascades as defined by geographers and defined by ecologists, and 2) how to inform our readers of the difference.

Regarding 1), I think it's quite uncontroversial that we need to point out the difference, in order to follow NPOV (i.e., reporting a controversy or difference).

Regarding 2), there are several ways to inform our readers. We could change the title of the article, we could mention it in the lead, or we could have a separate section about the difference. I would prefer one of the latter two. I rather dislike articles titled "NAME_OF_REGION (CEC ecoregion)", because the title does not obey WP:NAME:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

I think that college students looking for information about ecology of the North Cascades wouldn't know what a CEC or EPA ecoregion is. In fact, they are new in the last few years. The title "Ecology of the North Cascades" is specific enough to search for, and avoids the need for a disambiguation against North Cascades.

As for where in the article we should discuss the difference, I am undecided. I think I prefer a new section, rather than the lead, but what do other editors think? Skookum: what do you think?

—hike395 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a section of the article discussing the separate ecoregion-labels, and the separate ecoregions within the range, i.e. those that are not named "North Cascades". Also NB the North Cascades EPa/CEC ecoregion incldues a chunk of the Olympic Mountains....I'm fine with the current title so long as there's no confusion with the region the CEC, in its single-minded wisdom, has chosen to adopt, which happens to have a different meaning in geography than the one they're using; the WWF does similar kinds of name-cooptations without reference to geo-toponymy's meaning. Anyway, if North Cascades (ecoregion) does direct here, it should direct to Ecology of the North Cascades#North Cascades ecoregion (EPA/CEC) or some such section title; IF the WWF uses the same name, with a different meaning, that complicates things doesn't it? Part of my reasoning here is that if this is the redirect for North Cascades (EPA ecoregion) i.e. also CEC ecoregion, and it's a Level II ecoregion, which is an Ecozone in Canada, then it needs Category:Ecozones of Canada as well as other cats...but it's not titled as such, and so on....so unless there are separate mini-subarticles on each distinct ecoregion where they can be categorized properly....we'd wind up having both CEC/EPA and WWF ecoregion cats on this page, no?Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at /List_of_WWF_ecoregions_in_Canada#Temperate_coniferous_forests and there's List of ecoregions (WWF), and it's gonna be complicated; not so much in name as in nature of definition. Maybe the section here where all such links coudl redirect, or have pointers from whatever indepednent articles may exist, would be Ecology of the North Cascades#Ecoregion classifications, partly because there's also Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia (see its very nice interactive map). Thompson-Okanogan Plateau (CEC ecoregion) has to exist as a title because of the separate existence of the article Thompson Plateau: NB that ecoregion includes areas not anywhere near the Thompson Plateau - the Fraser Canyon, the Bridge River Country, and the Clear and Marble Ranges (the latter two are part of the Fraser Plateau - and to complicate those items the Chilcotin Ranges and Fraser Plateau (CEC ecoregion), the northern Bridge River Country is in the Chilcotin Ranges and the WWF has a Fraser Plateau and Basin complex (WWF ecoregion), which is different again. And that is why those disambiguations are necessary; it's not my fault if the ecologists all can't talk the same language, I'm just trying to straighten out all the kinks they've made ("Fraser Basin" is a landform mostly within the Nechako Plateau, not the Fraser Plateau for hte most part but also partly; and most of that WWF ecoregion is actually Nechako Plateau, not Fraser....).Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I also took a look at the WWF ecoregions, and I think we're fine and don't need to disambiguate. The WWF lumps together the Cascade Range and the Cascade Mountains, but splits along west (wet) side / east (dry) side. There are already stub articles for both ecoregions: British Columbia Mainland Coastal Forests ecoregion and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion). I don't think that people would confuse those for an article about the ecology of the North Cascades.

It is quite unfortunate that there are articles about overlapping/conflicting ecoregions. This is inherent in using names and definitions of ecoregions from an external source: they cannot agree. —hike395 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mountain Goats

I amended a statement under the Alpine Ecoregion section that stated that mountain goats remained in the high elevations of the Cascade Mountains most of the year. However, from other research conducted including interviews with Lead Wilderness Rangers the mountain goats have been seen as low as 2000 feet in elevation. Because this is not an alpine elevation I replaced mountain goats with pikas. The source for this is the Wildlife Habitat Relationship of WA & OR by D.H. Johnson & T.A. O'Neil. pp. 246. 2001. Jsaltz (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Subalpine Fir Ecoregion: Blue spruce? Larch?

Picea engelmannii in Mount Rainier National Park

The second paragraph of the Subalpine Fir Ecoregion section states: "The Subalpine Fir forests in the North Cascades include Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, blue spruce and Whitebark pine." I do not believe that Picea pungens (blue spruce) occurs anywhere in Washington or British Columbia, let alone in the North Cascades. Also, Larix lyallii (subalpine larch) is a common, if not dominant in places, species at and near treeline on the eastern side of the North Cascades. I am editing to correct these to errors, but feel free to discuss here if the ecology is more complicated than I understand. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what is meant is Sitka spruce? I tried to find the comparable biogeoclimatic zone but they're not laid out by altitude, only by general region; this ecoregion would be either the Western Hemlock or the Coastal Douglas Fir zones.Skookum1 (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no Sitka spruce on the east side of the Cascades, and no Sitka spruce at high elevation anywhere. I figure it was a typo or someone was looking at a Rocky Mountains reference. Engelmann Spruce is the only east-side Picea I am familiar with, and its already mentioned. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was the east side of the range under discussion, should have read the passage. In the biogeoclimatic zones there's Englemann Spruce-Subalpine fir and there's also a Montane Spruce zone, also Interior Douglas-fir but by the look of the map that seems to be lower terrain.Skookum1 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've photographed Picea engelmannii near the east boundary of Mount Rainier National Park (right), in the Wenatchee Mountains (File:EngelmannSpruce 7777.jpg) and in William O. Douglas Wilderness near the American River. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)