38 points
*

The 21% for Indiana is a little deceptive, because the northern half of the state is not very wooded at all, but the further south from Indianapolis you get, the more forested it gets. You can see it on this satellite map.

The glaciers pushed all the land in the south upward and made it very hilly, which is good tree country. As for the north, it’s not because forests were clear cut. It’s actually for a worse reason. The north used to be part of one of the world’s biggest wetlands, the Grand Kankakee Marsh. It’s been almost entirely drained for farmland.

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/opinion/2016/01/02/andrea-neal-draining-of-kankakee-basin-destroyed-indiana-habita/46557981/

permalink
report
reply
32 points

What exactly is deceptive about that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Because it’s not evenly distributed, but a good 30% of the state is heavily forested and another good 20% is forested but not heavily so. The map gives an impression (for each state really) that it is an even distribution in some way. Really, doing this in a state-by-state way as if political boundaries all made geographic sense is not very informative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

I would expect most to not be evenly distributed. Florida’s forests are likely largely the Everglades, and I’d suspect New Mexico’s are up north outside the desert.

And yeah, here in Ohio the remaining forests are largely in the south, but we were once a very forested state

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I don’t why you get an impression from the original infographic that it implies even distribution. I don’t get that at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Minnesota is heavily wooded, but only up north. It’s not deceptive, it’s how trees work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It’s a safe bet most of these aren’t evenly distributed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I guess I know the tree cover isn’t equally distributed, but it’s not necessarily my first thought, either. Pretty human mistake.

Thanks for the interesting and informative comment. I had no idea Indiana was like that. However, I did know that Ohio is similar because I’ve done research on Hocking Hills, and one of the things I read also talked about the park being outside the range of glacial erosion and how, in general, the more southerly areas represent ancient geology.

Hocking Hills is a lovely, if heavily visited, state park in Ohio.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Who we calling deceptive? The GKM was big, but it wasn’t “no forests in northern Indiana” big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topical_steroid_withdrawal?wprov=sfla1

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s always weird how people get preconceived notions of what a chart graph or map should be implying and then get frustrated when those preconceptions aren’t met because that’s not the point of said map graph or chart. I mean nothing in that map implied it was spread all over the state and yet you’re angry about it for no freaking reason. And it’s such a weird preconception too, I mean who honestly thinks that Landscapes are spread evenly over an area? Anyone who went through Elementary School knows that’s not true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m not frustrated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Texas is nothing but trees in the east, and no trees in the west.

But none of it are the original ecosystems: all the trees in the east were cut down and now it’s more or less a mono-culture of pines, with many invasive species; the plains were destroyed with a few holdouts; and I have no clue about in the west but I suspect that was messed up too.

But even 150 years ago a lot of forests in the east were still multistory with different layers of canopy. If left alone, someone said it would takes thousand of years for them to grow back to that.

Right now it’s just dense small pines cut down every few years, all over the state, and hard to walk though. Much easier to travel through earlier.

I live in the east where there was fifteen thousand years of history here, and a few thousand years of villages and larger settlements and several languages. But most those are forgotten because of the genocide which ended in my great great grandfather’s time.

But even earlier a previous ecosystem was destroyed by hunting out the large animals, which fundamentally changed the look of area. Trees just grow differently when there are large herbivores. There were more open areas in the forests too.

And in another hundred years most of these pine forests will be gone too, thanks to global warming. Probably too dry and hot that will blow off the top soil, causing rapid desertification . And the current people will move , most of them, and once again the land will forget its nature and people, towns will be forgotten.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

The Woodlands, TX resident. Can confirm, many trees over here. Further east and it’s just trees, the ents are migrating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

i genuinely cannot imagine such a large piece of land being 2% forest, i would lose my mind travelling through that

permalink
report
reply
11 points

It’s even stranger than that.

There are a fair few trees here. But most of them aren’t natural, they were planted. Planted in perfectly straight, compass-axis lines that run for about a kilometer each, slicing the plain into a giant square checker pattern.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

in my mind that’s still forest, it’s not like most of europe’s forests are in any way natural at this point, any time you see a forest here in sweden that has a suspicious amount of oaks of the same age that’s probably a forest intended to provide lumber for ships a couple hundred years ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I could be wrong, but it sounds like the trees form lines on a grid with no trees in the middle. Kinda like if you went insane and put trees every 10 lines in cities skylines. I wouldn’t consider that a park, much less a forest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

picture a 60 mph / 100 kmph road with one lane on each side winding between endless hills covered with medium height yellow grass and dotted with the occasional grazing cow, elk, etc.

That’s what most of the state looks like in my experience. Pretty beautiful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

sure it’s beautiful, the ocean is beautiful too, but that much open space would make me so uncomfortable. Denmark is bad enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The ground isn’t even the unnerving part; it’s how much of your vision is taken up by empty sky. It makes you feel absolutely miniscule

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

My family drove through Kansas once when I was a kid, and yep, the Great Plains are kinda rough on the head if you aren’t used to open grasslands. It’s like being on the ocean but grassland instead of water. Just grass and land as far as the eye can see

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The Flint Hills are beautiful

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s got it’s own beauty in a way. Soft rolling hills and an endless horizon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I grew up there, it’s a tundra/prairie biome. I grew up in the he’ll creek formation area though so lots of buttes. Any trees were largely planted by settlers.

It’s quite beautiful in its own right. Just avoid the eastern part of the state, that bits flat as a board and about as boring.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

In the fall the Farmers harvest their corn and soybeans. We live in a very flat are. In the winter you can see the frozen dirt all the way to the horizon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Mississippi, Jesus.

The black belt is such a massively underrepresented area in media I guess I shouldn’t be surprised I had no idea it was forested.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

The only reason Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are so low is because of the massive farms. They were originally all forest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

It must be that everything east of the Great Plains was originally, in America. In Canada the boreal forest stretches coast to coast (and hasn’t gotten much smaller to date).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There weren’t many meadows before humans came, it was all forrest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

Maine represent! That’s right only about a million people live here.

permalink
report
reply

Map Enthusiasts

!map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz

Create post

For the map enthused!

Rules:

  • post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps

  • be nice

Community stats

  • 3K

    Monthly active users

  • 215

    Posts

  • 2.8K

    Comments