Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

New map for what to plant reflects global warming

Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:45 AM EST
science, us, sci, map, zone, planting-zone
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>In this Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012 photo, Manager Jerry Holub looks at seed packages on display at the Earl May Nursery and Garden Center in Des Moines, Iowa. The USDA announced Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 new maps for plant hardiness zones, a key to determine which plants can survive in what parts of the country. The government's official guide of colorful planting zones is being updated for a warmer 21st century. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)</p>

In this Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2012 photo, Manager Jerry Holub looks at seed packages on display at the Earl May Nursery and Garden Center in Des Moines, Iowa. The USDA announced Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 new maps for plant hardiness zones, a key to determine which plants can survive in what parts of the country. The government's official guide of colorful planting zones is being updated for a warmer 21st century. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Global warming is hitting not just home, but garden. The color-coded map of planting zones often seen on the back of seed packets is being updated by the government, illustrating a hotter 21st century.

It's the first time since 1990 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has revised the official guide for the nation's 80 million gardeners, and much has changed. Nearly entire states, such as Ohio, Nebraska and Texas, are in warmer zones.

The new guide, unveiled Wednesday at the National Arboretum, arrives just as many home gardeners are receiving their seed catalogs and dreaming of lush flower beds in the spring.

It reflects a new reality: The coldest day of the year isn't as cold as it used to be, so some plants and trees can now survive farther north.

"People who grow plants are well aware of the fact that temperatures have gotten more mild throughout the year, particularly in the wintertime," said Boston University biology professor Richard Primack. "There's a lot of things you can grow now that you couldn't grow before."

He stand the giant fig tree in his suburban Boston yard stands as an example: "People don't think of figs as a crop you can grow in the Boston area. You can do it now."

The new guide also uses better weather data and offers more interactive technology. For example, gardeners using the online version can enter their ZIP code and get the exact average coldest temperature.

Also, for the first time, calculations include more detailed factors such as prevailing winds, the presence of nearby bodies of water, the slope of the land, and the way cities are hotter than suburbs and rural areas.

The map carves up the U.S. into 26 zones based on five-degree temperature increments. The old 1990 map mentions 34 U.S. cities in its key. On the 2012 map, 18 of those, including Honolulu, St. Louis, Des Moines, Iowa, St. Paul, Minn., and even Fairbanks, Alaska, are in newer, warmer zones.

Those differences matter in deciding what to plant.

For example, Des Moines used to be in zone 5a, meaning the lowest temperature on average was between minus 15 and minus 20 degrees. Now it's 5b, which has a lowest temperature of 10 to 15 degrees below zero. Jerry Holub, manager of a Des Moines plant nursery, said folks there might now be able to safely grow passion flowers.

Griffin, Ga., used to be in zone 7b, where the coldest day would average between 5 and 10 degrees. But the city is now in zone 8a, averaging a coldest day of 10 to 15 degrees. So growing bay laurel becomes possible. It wasn't recommended on the old map.

"It is great that the federal government is catching up with what the plants themselves have known for years now: The globe is warming and it is greatly influencing plants (and animals)," Stanford University biology professor Terry Root wrote in an email.

The changes come too late to make this year's seed packets, but they will be in next year's, said George Ball, chairman and CEO of the seed company W. Atlee Burpee, which puts the maps on packages of perennials, not annuals. But Ball said many of his customers already know what can grow in their own climate and how it has warmed.

"Climate change, which has been in the air for a long time, is not big news to gardeners," he said.

Mark Kaplan, a New York meteorologist who helped create the 1990 map, said the latest version clearly shows warmer zones migrating north. Other experts agreed.

The 1990 map was based on temperatures from 1974 to 1986, the new map from 1976 to 2005. The nation's average temperature from 1976 to 2005 was two-thirds of a degree higher than it was during the old time period, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

USDA spokeswoman Kim Kaplan, who was part of the map team, repeatedly tried to distance the new zones on the map from global warming. She said that while much of the country is in warmer zones, the map "is simply not a good instrument" to demonstrate climate change because it is based on just the coldest days of the year.

David W. Wolfe, a professor of plant and soil ecology at Cornell University, said that the USDA is being too cautious and that the map plainly reflects warming.

The revised map "gives us a clear picture of the `new normal' and will be an essential tool for gardeners, farmers and natural resource managers as they begin to cope with rapid climate change," Wolfe said in an email.

The Arbor Day Foundation issued its own hardiness guide six years ago, and the new government map is very similar, said Woodrow Nelson, a vice president at the plant-loving organization.

"We got a lot of comments that the 1990 map wasn't accurate anymore," Nelson said. "I look forward to (the new map). It's been a long time coming."

Nelson lives in Lincoln, Neb., where the zone warmed to a 5b. Nelson said he used to be in a "solid 4," but now he has Japanese maples and Fraser firs in his yard — trees that shouldn't survive in a zone 4.

Vaughn Speer, an 87-year-old master gardener in Ames, Iowa, said he has seen redbud trees, one of the earliest blooming trees, a little farther north in recent years.

"They always said redbuds don't go beyond U.S. Highway 30," he said, "but I'm seeing them near Roland," 10 miles to the north.

___

AP Writer Michael J. Crumb contributed to this report from Des Moines.

___

Online:

Plant map: http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Seth Borenstein's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (14)
Physicist-retired

I'll repeat what I said on CO Bob's seed of this artcle today:

USDA spokeswoman Kim Kaplan, who was part of the map team, repeatedly tried to distance the new zones in the map from global warming issues. She said even though much of the country is in warmer zones, the map “is simply not a good instrument” to demonstrate climate change because it is based on just the coldest days of the year.

Why is a biologist making this kind of statement? Truly, denying AGW is now akin to denying germ theory or DNA.

No one in a scientific capacity in our government should be making such ambiguous, diversionary statements any more. She might as well have been saying that 'eye-less' fish living in caves don't support the theory of evolution because they're still fish.

Interesting article (no surprise) but this really ticks me off.

  • 8 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:12 PM EST
Dowser

Uh, uh, uh! (*shaking head in time to the uh's)

Maybe our crepe myrtles will bloom longer, like they do in Georgia...

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:49 PM EST
Castor Bridge

USDA spokeswoman Kim Kaplan, who was part of the map team, repeatedly tried to distance the new zones in the map from global warming issues. She said even though much of the country is in warmer zones, the map “is simply not a good instrument” to demonstrate climate change because it is based on just the coldest days of the year.

You see RP, that's the way that real scientists talk. You, of all people, should understand that they don't make claims that they can't back up with proof. You are angry that the scientist didn't evangelise about the CAGW religion.

The climate has had a warm trend ever since the little ice age. Hopefully, it will continue that way and the scientists that are predicting cold are wrong. Cold kills people.

    #1.2 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:17 PM EST
    Unsane

    The last couple years here in central NC people have been planting palm trees in their yards. They even sell them at Home Depot now.

    • 1 vote
    #1.3 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:45 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Palm trees in NC - wow. Replacing pulled pork BBQ with coconut cream pie?

    the scientists that are predicting cold

    LOL - good one, Castor.

    • 3 votes
    #1.4 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:59 PM EST
    Reply
    Artie-3438207

    We'll be planting more zeroscape here in California I guess, like Phoenix?

    • 2 votes
    Reply#2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:17 PM EST
    Artie-3438207

    We'll be planting more zeroscape here in California I guess, like Phoenix?

    • 1 vote
    Reply#3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:17 PM EST
    shepherd0886

    Physicist-retired thank you for your friend request. I have accepted it with pleasure. Always nice to have someone to share my thoughts with. I admittedly came here expressly to thank you for that request but since I am here I will comment on this article. I personally have never denied the existence of global warming or the facts that support the affects of our existence upon it. What I have decried for the most part is the extreme efforts to induce fear and panic in the minds of the public in an effort to manipulate them into recklessly changing their spending habits. Knee jerk reactions have a nasty habit of being very ineffective, number one, and also a huge waste of time and money, number two. I much prefer a logical well planned step-by-step process that takes into account the desired goal but also considers the financial abilities and welfare of the public in the process.

    I happen to be an avid supporter of green technologies and finding ways to wean our society off oil as our primary energy source but I do not support anyone who would use the warming trend solely as a profit mechanism as some have seemed to be doing. LOL Also some of the proposals being offered as possible long term solutions seem to me to pose even greater environmental problems and health risks further on. I have often commented that if there is one thing that our govermental leadership is truly proficient at it is being shortsighted. LOL

    Take for example the electric car. Great idea on the face of it because it produces no emissions, puts people to work making batteries, and helps our auto industry by giving them a potentially saleable product. But wait a minute.... It also will produce a significant number of very large and expensive batteries that must be disposed of or recycled in the future. How much energy will that require? How much pollution will that cause? Then we must consider the buying public. They will have to not only buy the new car but ultimately replace the battery so how much will that cost them relative to regular maintenance on a standard vehicle. Then too we have to consider the impact on our infrastructure. Charging stations will have to replace gas stations and recharging most batteries produces a certain amount of gas that is released into the atmosphere. If that is also true of the lithium oxide batteries then will such gas pollute the atmostphere? Also how much energy will be required to keep these batteries charged relative to the energy consumed from oil based fuels?

    I don't know because I am not a scientist or very well educated for that matter but I do rather tend to "think too much" sometimes. LOL Personally for our immediate transportation needs I think that a far more beneficial approach would be to switch to alternative fuels other than petroleum based fuels that will still function in the existing internal%

    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:25 PM EST
    shepherd0886

    Physicist-retired thank you for your friend request. I have accepted it with pleasure. Always nice to have someone to share my thoughts with. I admittedly came here expressly to thank you for that request but since I am here I will comment on this article. I personally have never denied the existence of global warming or the facts that support the affects of our existence upon it. What I have decried for the most part is the extreme efforts to induce fear and panic in the minds of the public in an effort to manipulate them into recklessly changing their spending habits. Knee jerk reactions have a nasty habit of being very ineffective, number one, and also a huge waste of time and money, number two. I much prefer a logical well planned step-by-step process that takes into account the desired goal but also considers the financial abilities and welfare of the public in the process.

    I happen to be an avid supporter of green technologies and finding ways to wean our society off oil as our primary energy source but I do not support anyone who would use the warming trend solely as a profit mechanism as some have seemed to be doing. LOL Also some of the proposals being offered as possible long term solutions seem to me to pose even greater environmental problems and health risks further on. I have often commented that if there is one thing that our govermental leadership is truly proficient at it is being shortsighted. LOL

    Take for example the electric car. Great idea on the face of it because it produces no emissions, puts people to work making batteries, and helps our auto industry by giving them a potentially saleable product. But wait a minute.... It also will produce a significant number of very large and expensive batteries that must be disposed of or recycled in the future. How much energy will that require? How much pollution will that cause? Then we must consider the buying public. They will have to not only buy the new car but ultimately replace the battery so how much will that cost them relative to regular maintenance on a standard vehicle. Then too we have to consider the impact on our infrastructure. Charging stations will have to replace gas stations and recharging most batteries produces a certain amount of gas that is released into the atmosphere. If that is also true of the lithium oxide batteries then will such gas pollute the atmostphere? Also how much energy will be required to keep these batteries charged relative to the energy consumed from oil based fuels?

    I don't know because I am not a scientist or very well educated for that matter but I do rather tend to "think too much" sometimes. LOL Personally for our immediate transportation needs I think that a far more beneficial approach would be to switch to alternative fuels other than petroleum based fuels that will still function in the existing internal combustion engine while producing less emissions and then come up with alternatives that move us gradually away from the old standard engines. This allows for a more adaptive process of change rather than an earthshaking catharsis for the buying public. Such changes tend to be very ineffective if people cannot afford them or simply refuse to spend the money to implement them.

    Now as for our biologist who kind of tap danced around the issue of AGW I rather suspect that Ms. Kaplan was simply trying to introduce the results of their studies without jumping into the discussion on climate change and she was probably quite correct in stating that their studies and information were actually an insufficient gauge of what is actually occurring globally since it only covered the continental U.S. and Hawaii geographically.

    Also my friend if you have ever worked in or for a government agency you know very well that their management can seriously frown on anyone in their employ who draws unintended attention or criticism to that agency. My guess is that she was just covering her backside if you know what I mean. :=)) Again, thanks for the friend request and I look forward to sharing future conversations with you.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:32 PM EST
    shepherd0886

    Physicist-retired thank you for your friend request. I have accepted it with pleasure. Always nice to have someone to share my thoughts with. I admittedly came here expressly to thank you for that request but since I am here I will comment on this article. I personally have never denied the existence of global warming or the facts that support the affects of our existence upon it. What I have decried for the most part is the extreme efforts to induce fear and panic in the minds of the public in an effort to manipulate them into recklessly changing their spending habits. Knee jerk reactions have a nasty habit of being very ineffective, number one, and also a huge waste of time and money, number two. I much prefer a logical well planned step-by-step process that takes into account the desired goal but also considers the financial abilities and welfare of the public in the process.

    I happen to be an avid supporter of green technologies and finding ways to wean our society off oil as our primary energy source but I do not support anyone who would use the warming trend solely as a profit mechanism as some have seemed to be doing. LOL Also some of the proposals being offered as possible long term solutions seem to me to pose even greater environmental problems and health risks further on. I have often commented that if there is one thing that our govermental leadership is truly proficient at it is being shortsighted. LOL

    Take for example the electric car. Great idea on the face of it because it produces no emissions, puts people to work making batteries, and helps our auto industry by giving them a potentially saleable product. But wait a minute.... It also will produce a significant number of very large and expensive batteries that must be disposed of or recycled in the future. How much energy will that require? How much pollution will that cause? Then we must consider the buying public. They will have to not only buy the new car but ultimately replace the battery so how much will that cost them relative to regular maintenance on a standard vehicle. Then too we have to consider the impact on our infrastructure. Charging stations will have to replace gas stations and recharging most batteries produces a certain amount of gas that is released into the atmosphere. If that is also true of the lithium oxide batteries then will such gas pollute the atmostphere? Also how much energy will be required to keep these batteries charged relative to the energy consumed from oil based fuels?

    I don't know because I am not a scientist or very well educated for that matter but I do rather tend to "think too much" sometimes. LOL Personally for our immediate transportation needs I think that a far more beneficial approach would be to switch to alternative fuels other than petroleum based fuels that will still function in the existing internal combustion engine while producing less emissions and then come up with alternatives that move us gradually away from the old standard engines. This allows for a more adaptive process of change rather than an earthshaking catharsis for the buying public. Such changes tend to be very ineffective if people cannot afford them or simply refuse to spend the money to implement them.

    Now as for our biologist who kind of tap danced around the issue of AGW I rather suspect that Ms. Kaplan was simply trying to introduce the results of their studies without jumping into the discussion on climate change and she was probably quite correct in stating that their studies and information were actually an insufficient gauge of what is actually occurring globally since it only covered the continental U.S. and Hawaii geographically.

    Also my friend if you have ever worked in or for a government agency you know very well that their management can seriously frown on anyone in their employ who draws unintended attention or criticism to that agency. My guess is that she was just covering her backside if you know what I mean. :=)) Again, thanks for the friend request and I look forward to sharing future conversations with you.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:32 PM EST
    jameseg

    While global warming may cause flooding in many coastal areas and drought in some other areas, it could actually provides benefits to many places.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#7 - Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:02 AM EST
    Roxanne2Sweet

    Our rate of ghg pollution today is far outpacing that of the paleo-eocene thermal maximum of a quarter billion years ago, which saw the worst mass extinction of life in our planet's history.

    You can call it: Six Steps to Hell

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

    • 4 votes
    #7.1 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:18 PM EST
    jameseg

    Roxanne2Sweet, big changes could be coming. It depends on how severe the future temperature changes are.

    • 1 vote
    #7.2 - Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:42 PM EST
    Reply
    Fifth Horseman

    I hate to tell any one, but the effect of global warming can be seen in Chicago. A tree called Chinese Elm has for the last 15 years under going a change. It starts losing leaves within weeks of getting its leaves. Every tree in the Chicago-land area has a fungus that eats its leaves, put holes in them.

    There is hope for Yellow Fever in Chicago one of these summers. The seeds for the bug can be store in a bottle of wine from France. Like the West Nile virus it could in theory do havoc. All of the plagues of 120 years ago could find its way into Northern cities.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#8 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:56 PM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com