News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.6K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.3K     0 

Trees in Calgary

Found this helpful site that does the comparison work for you http://www.vancouver.climatemps.com/vs/calgary.php


View attachment 320668

Vancouver gets 76.9 cm(!) more rain, plus longer growing seasons. Rainforest climates are great for growing things.

Give a bit more detail, I thought these charts were cool from here https://calgary.weatherstats.ca/charts/precipitation-monthly.html
Vancouver
View attachment 320669
Calgary
View attachment 320670


Not only are we dry, we also have a not-insignificant percentage of our precipitation actually harmful to trees overall (% hail). So unless we engineer our way out of it with thoughtful water management and top-tier tree growth strategies/designs it'll be an uphill battle in our inhospitable wasteland.

On the plus side mold or shower towels that stay wet between two showers aren't much of a concept here so we have that.
I'd like to see an Edmonton vs Calgary comparison if u can please. I believe one of the other factors that affect Calgary's trees is the Chinooks which are known to stunt growth. With that said, there are still a few species of deciduous and coniferous trees that grow very well in Calgary's climate. I don't know why we don't build on our strengths.
 
I'd like to see an Edmonton vs Calgary comparison if u can please. I believe one of the other factors that affect Calgary's trees is the Chinooks which are known to stunt growth. With that said, there are still a few species of deciduous and coniferous trees that grow very well in Calgary's climate. I don't know why we don't build on our strengths.
calgary_edmonton.jpg
 
So 3 inches more in precipitation than Calgary. So most definitely our Chinooks do play a huge role in our lack of vegetation and tree growth. I believe the length of the growing season, with the number of frost-free days, plays into the calculation as well. Edmonton does have a slightly longer growing season.
 
Calgary is not technically a “dry” climate per se. Places like Kelowna and Denver have a much better variety of viable tree species while being a drier climate than Calgary. This is mainly because they are warmer.

In saying that, it’s not like there has been extensive scientific studies into what trees can survive in Calgary. I’ve seen enough variety of trees growing here to know that it is worth planting more than elm, ash, poplar, spruce and pine. Especially in the more sheltered inner city neighbourhoods. Keep in mind that the general trend climate wise in the region has been shorter, warmer winters, and more precipitation so it’s worth experimenting with trees and plant species.

The other thing is Edmonton has always had very good urban forestry department well connected to the U of A horticulture. Calgary not so much.
 
So 3 inches more in precipitation than Calgary. So most definitely our Chinooks do play a huge role in our lack of vegetation and tree growth. I believe the length of the growing season, with the number of frost-free days, plays into the calculation as well. Edmonton does have a slightly longer growing season.
Surprisingly, the longer growing season has almost no effect as the extra 15 frost free days are days happening at a time when the trees are more or less dormant. The short days in September slow growth down to a crawl and even if the frost stayed away another 3 weeks, it wouldn't change anything. The lack of sun causes trees to go dormant and the leaves to changes color. That's why you see leaves on trees in Toronto and southern ontario stay green longer. It's often believed to be the warmer falls, but it's actually the amount of sunlight, as they are quite a bit farther south. l Those extra 15 days help more for gardening, but even then, it has a minimal effect.

The biggest difference maker is the precipitation. If you water trees in Calgary they'll grow fine and a good example of this is Regina, where every single tree is hand planted. There were virtually no trees in Regina before the area was settled, but today they have a fair amount of nice big old trees.
Chinooks do also play a part. some trees and shrubs don't take well to the freeze thaw cycle.


Here's a shot of Regina showing the tree canopy, and in the backdrop, no trees at all.

EDR_ReginaAerials_9262-cropped-cropped.jpg
 
Last edited:
I’d like to see the City plant Aspen groves all over. I like they way the look and I think Aspen grow fairly well in Calgary, and can be planted fairly close together to create decently dense forests.
 
I’d like to see the City plant Aspen groves all over. I like they way the look and I think Aspen grow fairly well in Calgary, and can be planted fairly close together to create decently dense forests.
Aspen groves should do well here I would think. They're native to the area, and they seem to grow on their own even when they aren't planted. They would look nice alongside the Deerfoot.
 
I think the focus shouldn't only be planting trees alongside roadways and open spaces. Native grasses and shrubs to creating a textured groundcover, interspersed with small thickets of trees would go a long way in making these areas more visually interesting. This approach would help with costs as well, by allowing a variety of species which are drought tolerant to become established. I could go into this more, but it'd be easier to show a small example (albeit without shrubs).

I took this pic last fall, in the Highland Valley dog park, looking West at Centre ST. The slope was left natural or re-naturalized, and the fall colours were absolutely stunning - and this is primarily just grasses. Notice the typical Kentucky Blue Grass turf on either side of it already looking crappy and dull from lack of water, yet this patch still offers lots of vibrancy. Dappled in with some trees I think it looks great. I feel this would be much more achievable than mass planting millions of trees along Deerfoot.


IMG_20200928_165939.jpg





Another spot that comes to mind is actually on Deerfoot, and probably among the nicest parts of the freeway.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9707...4!1sO-KI9dst0eZFHre-VIQA7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This slope looks great all year, but especially in the fall IMO.
 
I think the focus shouldn't only be planting trees alongside roadways and open spaces. Native grasses and shrubs to creating a textured groundcover, interspersed with small thickets of trees would go a long way in making these areas more visually interesting. This approach would help with costs as well, by allowing a variety of species which are drought tolerant to become established. I could go into this more, but it'd be easier to show a small example (albeit without shrubs).

I took this pic last fall, in the Highland Valley dog park, looking West at Centre ST. The slope was left natural or re-naturalized, and the fall colours were absolutely stunning - and this is primarily just grasses. Notice the typical Kentucky Blue Grass turf on either side of it already looking crappy and dull from lack of water, yet this patch still offers lots of vibrancy. Dappled in with some trees I think it looks great. I feel this would be much more achievable than mass planting millions of trees along Deerfoot.


View attachment 320878




Another spot that comes to mind is actually on Deerfoot, and probably among the nicest parts of the freeway.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9707...4!1sO-KI9dst0eZFHre-VIQA7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This slope looks great all year, but especially in the fall IMO.
I'm fine with interspersed thickets of trees, and in fact would prefer that to a solid thicket of trees. Definitely something other than the bare open spaces they have in many areas. The example shown in the map link is pretty much what I had in mind.

This is another area that shows the difference between a natural hillside and a barren grassland hill that the city actually spends money to cut every once in a while.

 
Last edited:
What we need is more of this:

The article quotes a cost of $1.5 MM to maintain turf grass throughout the city medians that adds no value IMO. I really hope this pilot bears fruit and acts as a catalyst to moving away from our obsession with green turf grass

Absolutely we should allow naturalization along roads and highways. It is total insanity that we have to have some multi-year pilot project just so that we can abandon spending millions of dollars maintaining acres of dead turf grass.

The only people I can imagine being opposed to such an initiative would be a certain, ahem, "demographic group" trapped in a 1950s mentality and for whom there is no higher ideal than a perfectly green, perfectly mowed, weed-free suburban front lawn.
 
Absolutely we should allow naturalization along roads and highways. It is total insanity that we have to have some multi-year pilot project just so that we can abandon spending millions of dollars maintaining acres of dead turf grass.

The only people I can imagine being opposed to such an initiative would be a certain, ahem, "demographic group" trapped in a 1950s mentality and for whom there is no higher ideal than a perfectly green, perfectly mowed, weed-free suburban front lawn.
Well when it comes to my personal lawn I fit the 1950's mentality. My grass is extremely manicured and I treat it as a piece of art. Lush, dark green in colour, no dead spots, perfectly angle cut, watered and fertilized regularly. I'll even hand dig any stray dandelions that makes its way onto my grass. Maybe it's the Italian in me, but I also wash my driveway a couple times a year! Out along the major roads I say go all natural. I love the idea of planting aspen groves in and amongst natural shrubs and grasses. I do prefer some of the downtown parks to be manicured like Central memorial, Olympic Plaza, etc. I don't expect every suburban house to have a lawn as manicured as mine, but I do expect they cut it, keep it free from weeds, and throw a little water once in a while. People want a yard but are too lazy to take care of it.

I think downtown and all of the high streets should have medians like this on 16th Ave. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.073...4!1snAN0dhES-vyx2ra2zO4qiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 
The biggest killer of trees in Calgary is likely the early fall and late spring frosts we get. I still find it funny that big Maples don't do well here, but they are a symbol of the country lol. I think I've seen 1 or 2 sugar Maples here ever, and lots of Manitoba Maple.
 
Surprisingly, the longer growing season has almost no effect as the extra 15 frost free days are days happening at a time when the trees are more or less dormant. The short days in September slow growth down to a crawl and even if the frost stayed away another 3 weeks, it wouldn't change anything. The lack of sun causes trees to go dormant and the leaves to changes color. That's why you see leaves on trees in Toronto and southern ontario stay green longer. It's often believed to be the warmer falls, but it's actually the amount of sunlight, as they are quite a bit farther south. l Those extra 15 days help more for gardening, but even then, it has a minimal effect.

The biggest difference maker is the precipitation. If you water trees in Calgary they'll grow fine and a good example of this is Regina, where every single tree is hand planted. There were virtually no trees in Regina before the area was settled, but today they have a fair amount of nice big old trees.
Chinooks do also play a part. some trees and shrubs don't take well to the freeze thaw cycle.


Here's a shot of Regina showing the tree canopy, and in the backdrop, no trees at all.

EDR_ReginaAerials_9262-cropped-cropped.jpg
Calgary would gave longer days that southern Ontario until the third week of Sep. The leaves seem to start changing earlier in Calgary than Edmonton most years. Lots of European cities north of Calgary have trees that retain their leaves well into October and November. Daylight hours can't be the only factor.

I always assumed that trees that grow well in Calgary are those late to leaf out and early to drop as that protects against the freak frosts and snowfalls. Climate change and urban hear island should have profound impacts on Calgary as even slight warming would significantly reduce the occurance of April/May and Sep/Oct frosts and snowfall.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top