Deciduous vs Evergreen - When To Use Which

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Hey all!

I'm looking to do a bit of MMPing on my city tiles. I currently have a varied region of streams, hills, plains,coastlines and mountains, and am using Girafes trees. I've seen some rather colourful work as of late and am looking to impliment deciduous trees into my cities. Does anyone have any rough guides as when deciduous trees should be used and evergreen used instead? ie. on what types of landscapes?

-ROFLyoshi

[Prophet42 1,503]

It kind of depends on what type of landscape you are going for.  I would say if your climate is 'colder', like mountainous or northern plains, then most of the trees should be evergreen.  If it is a temperate or warmer climate the I would use mostly deciduous.  Also, evergreens (pine, spruce) seem to be more common in drier areas.  Deciduous are more common along rivers.

 

My suggestion would be determine the 'climate' of your region.  Since weather is really not a factor in SC4, this is up to you.  Once you determine the climate, than choose the trees that most suit the climate and start plopping away.

[Turjan 1,048]

Also, evergreens (pine, spruce) seem to be more common in drier areas.

 

While I agree with most of what you said, here's another fun fact: Temperate rainforests that are situated on coasts, like in the Pacific Northwest, tend to be dominated by evergreens, with only a few deciduous trees in between. The reason is that the oceanic climate prevents very cold winters, so evergreen plants have a longer growth season than deciduous ones, which means they outcompete the latter.

 

If it's about plopping trees in your cities, pretty much everything goes. That's mostly planted by people with their specific tastes.

 

Then again, tree controllers in SC4 have become that sophisticated that they can produce very varied and colorful results, especially if the terrain mod supports this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Since I practically live in the boreal forest, I tend to start with an evergreen terrain mod, and plant birches, aspens and similar on slopes and such.  I will, however, plant anything that I think will work inside my city limits.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I'm intending on a temperate, mild climate (think warm summers and mild-cool winter, rarely dropping below 0C). So what I gather is best is to use deciduous trees on Plains and river valleys, and then evergreen trees on hills and mountains?

[Turjan 1,048]

I'm intending on a temperate, mild climate (think warm summers and mild-cool winter, rarely dropping below 0C). So what I gather is best is to use deciduous trees on Plains and river valleys, and then evergreen trees on hills and mountains?

 

It's a bit more complicated. The game itself can actually factor in stuff like height, slope and humidity. If you just look at the result a nice tree controller like the Cascadia one produces, you will see that there are many different types of vegetation communities produced just from the underlying terrain. Note that my only contribution here was pressing a button, everything else is determined by the terrain mod and the tree controller:

 

 

You see a different deciduous forest in the lower plains than in the water runoffs of the mountains or on the high plateaus. You see different types of evergreens in different elevations. You see dry meadows and alpine meadows. You see cottonwoods near the water edge. It's very diverse.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Thanks for the example. Although I would prefer to mmp instead of God brush, you still give me a great reference to decide which style of tree to use.

[47ply 1,100]

That tree mod Turjan talked about comes with an awesome mmp brush and selection of trees in mayor mode it is simply awesome for doing shoreline and such Blunder did an awesome job on it

[Turjan 1,048]

Yup, there are lots of MMP brushes included so you can diversify the result even more to your liking.

 

Even the god mode brush is more diverse than it looks from the overview:

 

[Indiana Joe 1,752]

I've been using Ærden, but I think I'm headed off to a new region.  Would you recommend switching over to Cascadia?  Blunder seems to have done a fantastic job.

[cardiomonkey 32]

I am also using AErden, but the diversity is somewhat lacking (especially when it comes to the reddish trees). So I guess my extra question would be Cascadia and what terrain mod works best together?

 

Thanks.

[Turjan 1,048]

I've been using Ærden, but I think I'm headed off to a new region.  Would you recommend switching over to Cascadia?  Blunder seems to have done a fantastic job.

 

He sure did a fantastic job. Recommendations are always difficult when it comes to mods like this, as this is very much a matter of personal taste. I had tried the AErden mod, and the tree selection of the main mod wasn't quite what I had in mind for my new region. I really liked the extra controller for riverine areas though. I used the PNW controller before that and was looking for something with more deciduous trees, and while AErden delivered on that, it went too far for what I had in mind. So I was overjoyed when I got my hands on the Cascadia tree controller. The mix is exactly what I wanted. While the look is a bit more European than I had in mind, because of the controller's use of mostly Girafe trees, the substitutes (Norway maples, birches and poplars) are adequate. It certainly looks very good. Plus you have all those neat extra brushes in your MMP menu.

 

I am also using AErden, but the diversity is somewhat lacking (especially when it comes to the reddish trees). So I guess my extra question would be Cascadia and what terrain mod works best together?

 

Thanks.

 

I have used the Cascadia tree controller with both, Lowkee's Appalachian Terrain Mod and Gobias' Sudden Valley Terrain Mod. It worked nicely with both terrains. I'm not sure whether it's just a matter of my imagination, but it may be that the SV terrain mod squeezes slightly more diversity out of the tree controller, but I would have to do some objective testing to be sure of that, which I didn't do. Perhaps, they just work nicely together, or the (to my eyes) somewhat more diverse look of the greens in the SV mod may be the reason for that impression. I think Blunder likes the SV mod very much, if I remember correctly, so there's that. The pics up there were done with the SV mod. To be fair, I think LK's mod goes a bit better with the Maxis "rich" green. The SV mod has a replacement for that, but I don't like that replacement very much.

 

Of course, diversity also depends on the terrain itself. If your region is just flat, a tree controller won't deliver any diversity. The pics up there were made in quite hilly terrain.

 

 

Edit: While the image is a bit too small to see all the brushes with the tiny stuff, here's an overview of the MMP brush results:

 

[BlakeMW 84]

I'm intending on a temperate, mild climate (think warm summers and mild-cool winter, rarely dropping below 0C). So what I gather is best is to use deciduous trees on Plains and river valleys, and then evergreen trees on hills and mountains?

If you're going for an Australian climate then the important thing is that nearly without exception Australian native trees are evergreen (the few exceptions are mainly hot season deciduous). So any bush or wilds should be evergreen. Deciduous trees were mainly introduced by colonists who wanted to reproduce England, so it's appropriate to put Deciduous trees in developed areas, such as agricultural land, along roads and in cities.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Don't forget that you can only have one terrain mod at a time, and switching requires starting a new region.

[Turjan 1,048]

Don't forget that you can only have one terrain mod at a time, and switching requires starting a new region.

 

You can just exchange terrain mods without problems. Most of my regions have seen several different ones. There's sometimes the odd height difference in region view, but that does not affect function and will vanish as soon as you saved every tile with the new mod at least once.

 

If you mean tree controllers, even in that case you can switch, as long as you keep the MMP's for the old trees. I have a region that has mixes of Maxis tree cover, forests made with the PNW tree controller and others with the Cascadia one on the same tiles. Just keep the MMP's, and you're good.

[cardiomonkey 32]

Don't forget that you can only have one terrain mod at a time, and switching requires starting a new region.

 

Do I have to render the region again (even if it is currently blank with nothing, i.e., vegetation) or as long as it is fresh and clean, so to say it is ok?

 

Yes, levels of terrain definitely have an affect on the vegetation, but after a lot of testing I like the AErden, but it misses a lot of the reds (they only appear at very high altitude) where the only growth would be small conifers and spruces.

 

Don't forget that you can only have one terrain mod at a time, and switching requires starting a new region.

 

You can just exchange terrain mods without problems. Most of my regions have seen several different ones. There's sometimes the odd height difference in region view, but that does not affect function and will vanish as soon as you saved every tile with the new mod at least once.

 

If you mean tree controllers, even in that case you can switch, as long as you keep the MMP's for the old trees. I have a region that has mixes of Maxis tree cover, forests made with the PNW tree controller and others with the Cascadia one. Just keep the MMP's, and you're good.

 

 

Great, answered my question really. 

I think I will give Cascadia a shot, only a couple of more dependencies I need to get then.

Cool

Thanks All.

[Turjan 1,048]

Great, answered my question really. 

I think I will give Cascadia a shot, only a couple of more dependencies I need to get then.

Cool

Thanks All.

 

Just to be clear, in order to avoid CTD's while changing tree mods, you may have to install the MMP's for the tree mod you are currently using if you didn't already do so, if you don't remove all trees you already planted with the first mod. I don't remember how this was in AErden.

 

So, if you didn't build anything, just restarting the region is the safer option and also helps to keep your MMP menus smaller. If you just want to test a tile, there's the "flora [off]" cheat. Keep in mind that this will remove all flora, also on lots, and is irreversible, so use with caution.

[blunder 1,080]

Hey look, Yoshi's back!

 

Does anyone have any rough guides as when deciduous trees should be used and evergreen used instead? ie. on what types of landscapes?

...

I'm intending on a temperate, mild climate (think warm summers and mild-cool winter, rarely dropping below 0C). So what I gather is best is to use deciduous trees on Plains and river valleys, and then evergreen trees on hills and mountains?

 

The great thing about Earth is there is a little bit of everything.  Places with all evergreens, places with all deciduous, and everything in between can be found somewhere.  The key is not what something 'should' be, but to pick a place on earth you want to make your own fictional copy of and study it.  If we're talking 'temperate forest' in the northern hemisphere sense then your last statement in the quote is largely right but it's more about what stage of regrowth that spot of land is in.  It's all about the cycle of destruction and rebirth.  For the most part what we call 'deciduous' trees in sc4 recolonize faster than what we call 'evergreen'.  So in areas that suffer destructive events more frequently, like flood plains, riverbeds, mountain streams, etc., we see more deciduous.  If enough time goes by between destructive events, however, the evergreens will still colonize and choke out the deciduous.  Here in the PNW we have plenty of conifers along rivers and on flat land, not because they're better suited to the habitat, but simply because they've had enough time.  Generally though, you can use 'deciduous' along water yes, and where you want to imply there's water, like hillside creeks without ever actually painting a creek.  But don't forget to place them where there's a lot of erosion or catastrophic flooding.  Of course, if you're going for the Australian or New Zealand alps this pretty much throws everything out the window.  Then yeah you might want to use deciduous extensively so the summer models fake the eucalyptus, acacia, jacarandas, and whatever else you downunda folk have. 

 

But whatever you choose to do, make sure you have lots and lots of variety.  For instance, here in washington state's forests we have at least 20 species of native conifer trees (4 true fir, doug fir, 2 hemlocks, 3 spruce, 4 pines, 2 larches, red cedar, cypress, 2 junpiers ...)  I have no idea how many deciduous but i could probably come up with 20 more.

 

Side note since it came up: my cascadia controller isn't meant to try to make a perfect recreation of a certain forest.  Rather it's meant to be an aesthetically pleasing compromise between lots of different options.  That way you can detail stuff to your heart's content and then use the god mode tree tool afterward to fill in around it and hopefully things will blend well.  So while it is largely based on PNW evergreen forests, the lowland deciduous is exaggerated to take advantage of giraffe's lovely models, and the midrange forests have a lot of larch/aspen that are normally found on the drier east slopes of the cascades.  Also, yes, it is calibrated for Gobias' Sunken Valley terrain.  You should still get good results from Lowkee's, but i never tested it on that and don't know where the top of the trees place compared to Lowkee's snow/ice terrain textures.  Lowkee's does have a slight advantage in that the browner texture palate makes the tree colors pop out a bit more.  See some of Paeng's work in his CJ from about last... march?.... called 'mt adams.'

 

 

Just to be clear, in order to avoid CTD's while changing tree mods, you may have to install the MMP's for the tree mod you are currently using if you didn't already do so, if you don't remove all trees you already planted with the first mod. I don't remember how this was in AErden.

 

 

The uninstall support package is only something i've done with my tree controllers.  c.p.'s old ones are interchangeable with each other but have no separate mmp package, and the same is true of the aerden controllers.  Both of them need to be removed completely before switching to a different author's tree controller. 

[rsc204 21,867]

 

If you just want to test a tile, there's the "flora [off]" cheat. Keep in mind that this will remove all flora, also on lots, and is irreversible, so use with caution.

 

 

Don't forget if you use Flora Off to remove all flora from your game to then use the command Flora On again, otherwise seasonal flora will be deactivated.

[Turjan 1,048]

If we're talking 'temperate forest' in the northern hemisphere sense then your last statement in the quote is largely right but it's more about what stage of regrowth that spot of land is in.  It's all about the cycle of destruction and rebirth.  For the most part what we call 'deciduous' trees in sc4 recolonize faster than what we call 'evergreen'.  So in areas that suffer destructive events more frequently, like flood plains, riverbeds, mountain streams, etc., we see more deciduous.  If enough time goes by between destructive events, however, the evergreens will still colonize and choke out the deciduous.  Here in the PNW we have plenty of conifers along rivers and on flat land, not because they're better suited to the habitat, but simply because they've had enough time.

 

That's really only true under specific climatic conditions, like the wet and mild climate in the PNW or in conditions of very short growth seasons in the North or higher up in the mountains. In much of central and western Europe for instance, the natural cover is a monoculture of beech (nowadays it's mostly conifers because they grow faster and are planted because of this). One species, a tall deciduous tree. Tallest species with dense foliage wins. Nothing else grows there, except at places where a tree fell down or at forest edges. There's even hardly any undergrowth, because it's too dark at the ground. You only have very nice spring flowers, when the whole ground turns white or blue from blossoms before the tree leaves come out and kill everything else off. This would look completely boring in SC4, except with a nice two week spring display. Then you have conifers mixed in in very hilly areas, and spots of mixed oak/birch/conifer etc. woods in the more open coastal low plain, a place the beeches don't like.

 

Side note since it came up: my cascadia controller isn't meant to try to make a perfect recreation of a certain forest.  Rather it's meant to be an aesthetically pleasing compromise between lots of different options.  That way you can detail stuff to your heart's content and then use the god mode tree tool afterward to fill in around it and hopefully things will blend well.  So while it is largely based on PNW evergreen forests, the lowland deciduous is exaggerated to take advantage of giraffe's lovely models, and the midrange forests have a lot of larch/aspen that are normally found on the drier east slopes of the cascades.

 

I know, and I'm very happy because of it. Your PNW controller was very realistic, as the coastal PNW forests are composed mostly of 4 different conifers, and this may even be more specific for certain areas. The new mix looks much more interesting, even if it's a mix of favorites. I'm glad you brought the aspens back, together with the larches. The yellow up in the fall mountains looks so nice in contrast to the rest.

 

The uninstall support package is only something i've done with my tree controllers.  c.p.'s old ones are interchangeable with each other but have no separate mmp package, and the same is true of the aerden controllers.  Both of them need to be removed completely before switching to a different author's tree controller.

 

Thanks for mentioning. I used the Olympic tree controller at some point, so yes, you have to remove those trees.

[blunder 1,080]

That's really only true under specific climatic conditions, like the wet and mild climate in the PNW or in conditions of very short growth seasons in the North or higher up in the mountains.

 

 

Well.... It would be more accurate to say that the european temperate deciduous forests are more of the special case.  That bit i mentioned about what grows back quickest after destructive events: human interference has been the most destructive event in the natural world since ~55ma, and the human habitation of europe north of the alps since the mid-holocene has been utterly disastrous to the european forests (same story with the temperate deciduous forests of china).  Europe's temperate deciduous forest used to be host to a vast array of species, but now it's only the palest shadow of it's former glory thanks to four millenia of mis-, or non-, management.

 

Of course for re-colonization to occur there has to still be mature specimens within or near the damaged area, and with so much of the european specie pool drastically reduced quick re-colonization isn't possible.  If you look at it right now you might see beech, beech, and more beech.  Beech may be a climax species that also has a high proliferation, but it isn't impervious to colonization from other species, notably maple.  If humans were all to disappear tomorrow because of a virus or something that left our ecosystems relatively 'intact', forest regrowth would proceed.  The conifers would advance north out of the alps generation by generation, and thanks to the large variety of ornamental trees, more hardwoods would add their diversity to the european plains once again.  But it's something that would take hundreds if not thousands of years.  (fun fact:  before the start of the ice ages at the beginning of the Pleistocene the european forests were dominantly coniferous) 

 

The same is true in any forest biome: change is the only constant.  When parts of the forest are destroyed, and they inevitably will be, they will go through a series of successions over time until the climax composition once again dominates (unless of course it's been rendered regionally extinct). 

 

tldr: i don't really see how your statement contradicts my point.  The case you cited is just one instant in time amid a destructive process.  And that 'certain conditions:' applies to most temperate forests, which is what we're talking about; if it's not 'wet and mild' or 'with a short growing season,' it's not really a temperate climate, is it?  (if it's not wet enough we don't get a forest, if it doesn't have a short growing season it means we've moved close enough to the equator to move to a tropical/subtropical range, if it's colder than mild we've moved to boreal, continental, or alpine, etc.)

 

But we're going rather far afield here

 

I'm glad you brought the aspens back, together with the larches. The yellow up in the fall mountains looks so nice in contrast to the rest.

 

 

Thanks!  Our east-side aspen are nice, but our alpine larches are simply amazing; there was no way i couldn't include them.  Here is a page with a bunch of nice larch pictures, and here's a stack of photos from a photographer i follow on instagram of larch in the enchantments (scroll to bottom half).

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Hey look, Yoshi's back!

Uhm, I never left

But thankyou for your detailed response! I love how you've given a nice answer that clears up the ecology questions and can help me decide which style of tree is better depending on where I am planting them. Brilliant answers by everyone.

[Turjan 1,048]

Well.... It would be more accurate to say that the european temperate deciduous forests are more of the special case.

Sure. About 90% of the European tree species got killed off during the pleistocene, because the Alps and the Pyrenees prevented moving of the tree belt south. As there was nowhere to go, these species simply vanished. Also, the ice ages changed the soils. 

 

Europe's temperate deciduous forest used to be host to a vast array of species, but now it's only the palest shadow of it's former glory thanks to four millenia of mis-, or non-, management.

 

Actually, human activity is the sole reason that there are any forests with a vast array of species in temperate Europe at all. Any mixed oak/hornbeam forests with their many different tree species outside of the boreal zone or on podzols exist due to millenia of human activity. Beech, although relatively slow-growing, has the advantage of being able to grow up in relatively dark shadow, being taller than any other species naturally occurring in this area, and then being able to cut off the light for pretty much anything else other than holly or yew. Other species can grow in only under certain conditions: Silver firs in the mountains, oaks on very acidic soils, and maples or ash stand a chance on very rich soils. Otherwise, if you leave these forests completely alone, they become... beech.

 

The fact that there are so many spruce forests in central Europe at all is just because human forestry prefers them,  because spruce grows much faster than beech.

 

If humans were all to disappear tomorrow because of a virus or something that left our ecosystems relatively 'intact', forest regrowth would proceed.  The conifers would advance north out of the alps generation by generation, and thanks to the large variety of ornamental trees, more hardwoods would add their diversity to the european plains once again.

This is the thing: The naturally occurring conifers from the alps wouldn't be able to do this, because they are not tall enough. Beech outcompetes them in the European plains. It's again human activity that would make your scenario possible, as you yourself note: Some tall ornamental trees, like Nordmann firs, were brought over by humans from the Caucasus or other areas and may stand a chance. So, ironically, it would be humans even in this scenario who would be responsible for bringing diversity back, at least if you look at time frames of many thousands of years. It may look different in longer geological time frames.

 

The same is true in any forest biome: change is the only constant.  When parts of the forest are destroyed, and they inevitably will be, they will go through a series of successions over time until the climax composition once again dominates (unless of course it's been rendered regionally extinct).

No contest. We just disagree about the cause for regional extinction. It was the ice ages and specific geography of the area which made beech the natural climax species of the area. 

 

Thanks!  Our east-side aspen are nice, but our alpine larches are simply amazing; there was no way i couldn't include them.  Here is a page with a bunch of nice larch pictures, and here's a stack of photos from a photographer i follow on instagram of larch in the enchantments (scroll to bottom half).

Amazing images. The golden color of those larches is beautiful. Thanks for posting the links! I only know the autumn forests in more southern mountains, like this pic I took:

I only posted this because it reminds me of your tree controller. Thank you again for this .

 

If I consider the game, I will use what I think is pleasing to the eye. And who doesn't like autumn colors .