I'm a raincoaster too, just north of there, same climate same species etc .... yes the low elevations have been hit hard, some biogeoclimatic zones near wiped out, for instance the garry oak/douglas fir meadows zone which has some miniscule per cent of it left relatively unscathed ... interestingly enough, one of the finest examples is near downtown Victoria, still shows 'cultural modification' of camas management from pre-HBC days ... not far away there was another great example until the seventies when it was 'developed' - into a rubbish tip ... you can't go back of course, but clearly this shortsightedness was stupid, much more should have been conserved ... going forward we would do well to take a lesson and smarten up, definitely
'No trees or biodiversity on rocks, a glacier or lake, right? . ' - you might be surprised at what grows in those places .... there are species whose home is snow, for instance, i'd bet you'll find some in and on and dependent on glaciers ... just the way nature works, abhors a vacuum, puts a life form in there ... look at those undersea vents spewing six hundred degree highly toxic water, number of species dependent on them has yet to be counted .... as for rocks, hey they all go mossy here in about a week and a half ... all this soil was once rock, and largely it was living things that changed it |
