Hubbry Logo
Hardiness zoneHardiness zoneMain
Open search
Hardiness zone
Community hub
Hardiness zone
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Hardiness zone
Hardiness zone
from Wikipedia

A hardiness zone is a geographic area defined as having a certain average annual minimum temperature, a factor relevant to the survival of many plants. In some systems other statistics are included in the calculations. The original and most widely used system, developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a rough guide for landscaping and gardening, defines 13 zones by long-term average annual extreme minimum temperatures. It has been adapted by and to other countries (such as Canada) in various forms. A plant may be described as "hardy to zone 10": this means that the plant can withstand a minimum temperature of −1.1 to 4.4 °C (30 to 40 °F).

Unless otherwise specified, in American contexts "hardiness zone" or simply "zone" usually refers to the USDA scale. However, some confusion can exist in discussing buildings and HVAC, where "climate zone" can refer to the International Energy Conservation Code zones, where Zone 1 is warm and Zone 8 is cold.

Other hardiness rating schemes have been developed as well, such as the UK Royal Horticultural Society and US Sunset Western Garden Book systems. A heat zone (see below) is instead defined by annual high temperatures; the American Horticultural Society (AHS) heat zones use the average number of days per year when the temperature exceeds 30 °C (86 °F).

A hardiness or heat zone are both highly specific with respect to altitude, amount of sunlight, rainfall, humidity levels, wind chill, wind speed, amongst other conditions, regardless of latitude and longitude. Trees and greenery foliage may provide dappled or full shade like they can break wind to provide, as do greenhouses without artificial climate control. As a result, microclimates are created where some plants may unexpectedly thrive. Always include caution, knowledge from personal experiences and trial and error when determining whether a plant will grow or not in a particular area.https://evergreenbotany.com/blogs/news/plant-growing-zones

United States hardiness zones (USDA scale)

[edit]
(See table below)
Temperature scale used to define USDA hardiness zones. These are annual extreme minima (an area is assigned to a zone by taking the lowest temperature recorded there in a given year). As shown, the USDA uses a GIS dataset averaged over 1976 to 2005 for its United States maps.
Global Plant Hardiness Zones (approximate). Antarctica is not shown; most of it except the peninsula is zone 0 or 1,[citation needed] and is almost completely covered by the Antarctic ice sheet.

The USDA system was originally developed to aid gardeners and landscapers in the United States.

In the United States, most of the warmer zones (zones 9, 10, and 11) are located in the deep southern half of the country, on the southern coastal margins, and on the Pacific coast. Higher zones can be found in Hawaii (up to 12) and Puerto Rico (up to 13). The southern middle portion of the mainland and central coastal areas are in the middle zones (zones 8, 7, and 6). The far northern portion on the central interior of the mainland have some of the coldest zones (zones 5, 4, and small area of zone 3) and often have much less consistent range of temperatures in winter due to being more continental, especially further west with higher diurnal temperature variations, and thus the zone map has its limitations in these areas. Lower zones can be found in Alaska (down to 1). The low latitude and often stable weather in Florida, the Gulf Coast, and southern Arizona and California, are responsible for the rarity of episodes of severe cold relative to normal in those areas. The warmest zone in the 48 contiguous states is the Florida Keys (11b) and the coldest is in north-central Minnesota (2b). A couple of locations on the northern coast of Puerto Rico have the warmest hardiness zone in the United States at 13b. Conversely, isolated inland areas of Alaska have the coldest hardiness zone in the United States at 1a.

Definitions

[edit]
2023 update of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map
Zone From To
0 a < −65 °F (−53.9 °C)
b −65 °F (−53.9 °C) −60 °F (−51.1 °C)
1 a −60 °F (−51.1 °C) −55 °F (−48.3 °C)
b −55 °F (−48.3 °C) −50 °F (−45.6 °C)
2 a −50 °F (−45.6 °C) −45 °F (−42.8 °C)
b −45 °F (−42.8 °C) −40 °F (−40 °C)
3 a −40 °F (−40 °C) −35 °F (−37.2 °C)
b −35 °F (−37.2 °C) −30 °F (−34.4 °C)
4 a −30 °F (−34.4 °C) −25 °F (−31.7 °C)
b −25 °F (−31.7 °C) −20 °F (−28.9 °C)
5 a −20 °F (−28.9 °C) −15 °F (−26.1 °C)
b −15 °F (−26.1 °C) −10 °F (−23.3 °C)
6 a −10 °F (−23.3 °C) −5 °F (−20.6 °C)
b −5 °F (−20.6 °C) 0 °F (−17.8 °C)
7 a 0 °F (−17.8 °C) 5 °F (−15 °C)
b 5 °F (−15 °C) 10 °F (−12.2 °C)
8 a 10 °F (−12.2 °C) 15 °F (−9.4 °C)
b 15 °F (−9.4 °C) 20 °F (−6.7 °C)
9 a 20 °F (−6.7 °C) 25 °F (−3.9 °C)
b 25 °F (−3.9 °C) 30 °F (−1.1 °C)
10 a 30 °F (−1.1 °C) 35 °F (1.7 °C)
b 35 °F (1.7 °C) 40 °F (4.4 °C)
11 a 40 °F (4.4 °C) 45 °F (7.2 °C)
b 45 °F (7.2 °C) 50 °F (10 °C)
12 a 50 °F (10 °C) 55 °F (12.8 °C)
b 55 °F (12.8 °C) 60 °F (15.6 °C)
13 a 60 °F (15.6 °C) 65 °F (18.3 °C)
b > 65 °F (18.3 °C)

History

[edit]

The first attempts to create a geographical hardiness zone system were undertaken by two researchers at the Arnold Arboretum in Boston; the first was published in 1927 by Alfred Rehder,[1] and the second by Donald Wyman in 1938.[2] The Arnold map was subsequently updated in 1951, 1967, and finally 1971, but eventually fell out of use completely.

The modern USDA system began at the US National Arboretum in Washington. The first map was issued in 1960, and revised in 1965. It used uniform 10 °F (5.6 °C) ranges, and gradually became widespread among American gardeners.[3][4]

The USDA map was revised and reissued in 1990 with freshly available climate data, this time with five-degree distinctions dividing each zone into new "a" and "b" subdivisions.

In 2003, the American Horticultural Society (AHS) produced a draft revised map, using temperature data collected from July 1986 to March 2002. The 2003 map placed many areas approximately a half-zone higher (warmer) than the USDA's 1990 map. Reviewers noted the map zones appeared to be closer to the original USDA 1960 map in its overall zone delineations. Their map purported to show finer detail, for example, reflecting urban heat islands by showing the downtown areas of several cities (e.g., Baltimore, Maryland; Washington, D.C., and Atlantic City, New Jersey) as a full zone warmer than outlying areas. The map excluded the detailed a/b half-zones introduced in the USDA's 1990 map, an omission widely criticized by horticulturists and gardeners due to the coarseness of the resulting map. The USDA rejected the AHS 2003 draft map and created its own map in an interactive computer format, which the American Horticultural Society now uses.[5]

In 2006, the Arbor Day Foundation released an update of U.S. hardiness zones, using mostly the same data as the AHS. It revised hardiness zones, reflecting generally warmer recent temperatures in many parts of the country, and appeared similar to the AHS 2003 draft. The Foundation also did away with the more detailed a/b half-zone delineations.[6]

In 2012 the USDA updated their plant hardiness map based on 1976–2005 weather data, using a longer period of data to smooth out year-to-year weather fluctuations.[7] Two new zones (12 and 13) were added to better define and improve information sharing on tropical and semitropical plants, they also appear on the maps of Hawaii and Puerto Rico. There is a very small spot east of San Juan, Puerto Rico, that includes the airport in coastal Carolina, where the mean minimum is 67 degrees F (19 C), which is classified as hardiness Zone 13b, the highest category, with temperatures rarely below 65 °F (18 °C). The map has a higher resolution than previous editions, and is able to show local variations due to factors such as elevation or large bodies of water. Many zone boundaries were changed as a result of the more recent data, as well as new mapping methods and additional information gathered. Many areas were a half-zone warmer than the previous 1990 map.[8] The 2012 map was created digitally for the internet, and includes a ZIP Code zone finder and an interactive map.[9][10]

In 2015, the Arbor Day Foundation revised another map, also with no a and b subdivisions, showing many areas having zones even warmer, with the most notable changes in the Mid Atlantic and Northeast, showing cities like Philadelphia, New York City and Washington D.C. in zone 8, due to their urban heat islands.[11]

In November 2023, the USDA released another updated version of their plant hardiness map, based on 1991–2020 weather data across the United States. The updated map shows continued northward movement of hardiness zones, reflecting a continued warming trend in the United States' climate.[12]

Selected U.S. cities

[edit]

The USDA plant hardiness zones for selected U.S. cities as based on the 2023 map are the following:

City Zone[13]
Albuquerque, New Mexico 7b/8a
Anchorage, Alaska 5a/5b
Atlanta, Georgia 8a/8b
Austin, Texas 9a
Baltimore, Maryland 7b/8a
Boise, Idaho 7a/7b
Boston, Massachusetts 6b/7a
Buffalo, New York 6b
Charlotte, North Carolina 8a
Chicago, Illinois 6a/6b
Cincinnati, Ohio 6b
Cleveland, Ohio 6b/7a
Columbus, Ohio 6b
Dallas, Texas 8b
Denver, Colorado 6a
Detroit, Michigan 6b
El Paso, Texas 8b/9a
Fairbanks, Alaska[14] 2a
Fort Worth, Texas 8b
Fresno, California 9b
Greensboro, North Carolina 8a
Honolulu, Hawaii 12b
Houston, Texas 9b
Indianapolis, Indiana 6a/6b
Jacksonville, Florida 9a/9b
Kansas City, Missouri 6b/7a
Las Vegas, Nevada 9a/9b
Los Angeles, California 10a/10b[15]
Louisville, Kentucky 7a
Memphis, Tennessee 8a
Miami, Florida 11a
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 5b/6a
Minneapolis, Minnesota 5a
Nashville, Tennessee 7a/7b
New Orleans, Louisiana 9b
New York, New York 7b
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7b
Omaha, Nebraska 5b/6a
Orlando, Florida 10a
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 7b
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 6b/7a
Phoenix, Arizona 9b/10a
Portland, Oregon 8b/9a
Raleigh, North Carolina 8a
Reno, Nevada 7a/7b
Sacramento, California 9b
Salt Lake City, Utah 7a/7b
San Antonio, Texas 9a
San Diego, California 10b/11a
San Francisco, California 10a/10b
San Jose, California 9b/10a
San Juan, Puerto Rico 13a/13b
Seattle, Washington 9a
St. Louis, Missouri 7a
Tampa, Florida 10a
Tucson, Arizona 9a/9b
Tulsa, Oklahoma 7b
Virginia Beach, Virginia 8a/8b
Washington, D.C. 7b/8a
Wichita, Kansas 7a

Limitations

[edit]

As the USDA system is based entirely on average annual extreme minimum temperature in an area, it is limited in its ability to describe the climatic conditions a gardener may have to account for in a particular area: there are many other factors that determine whether or not a given plant can survive in a given zone.

Zone information alone is often not adequate for predicting winter survival, since factors such as frost dates and frequency of snow cover can vary widely between regions. Even the extreme minimum itself may not be useful when comparing regions in widely different climate zones. As an extreme example, due to the Gulf Stream most of the United Kingdom is in zones 8–9, while in the US, zones 8–9 include regions such as the subtropical coastal areas of the southeastern US and Mojave and Chihuahuan inland deserts, thus an American gardener in such an area may only have to plan for several nights of cold temperatures per year, while their British counterpart may have to plan for several months.

In addition, the zones do not incorporate any information about duration of cold temperatures, summer temperatures, or sun intensity insolation; thus sites which may have the same mean winter minima on the few coldest nights and be in the same garden zone, but have markedly different climates. For example, zone 8 covers coastal, high latitude, cool summer locations like Seattle and London, as well as lower latitude, hot-summer climates like Charleston and Madrid. Farmers, gardeners, and landscapers in the former two must plan for entirely different growing conditions from those in the latter, in terms of length of hot weather and sun intensity. Coastal Ireland and central Florida are both Zone 10, but have radically different climates.

The hardiness scales do not take into account the reliability of snow cover in the colder zones. Snow acts as an insulator against extreme cold, protecting the root system of hibernating plants. If the snow cover is reliable, the actual temperature to which the roots are exposed will not be as low as the hardiness zone number would indicate. As an example, Quebec City in Canada is located in zone 4, but can rely on a significant snow cover every year, making it possible to cultivate plants normally rated for zones 5 or 6. But, in Montreal, located to the southwest in zone 5, it is sometimes difficult to cultivate plants adapted to the zone because of the unreliable snow cover.[citation needed]

Many plants may survive in a locality but will not flower if the day length is insufficient or if they require vernalization (a particular duration of low temperature).

There are many other climate parameters that a farmer, gardener, or landscaper may need to take into account as well, such as humidity, precipitation, storms, rainy-dry cycles or monsoons, and site considerations such as soil type, soil drainage and water retention, water table, tilt towards or away from the sun, natural or humanmade protection from excessive sun, snow, frost, and wind, etc. The annual extreme minimum temperature is a useful indicator, but ultimately only one factor among many for plant growth and survival.[9][3][16]

Alternatives

[edit]

An alternative means of describing plant hardiness is to use "indicator plants". In this method, common plants with known limits to their range are used.[17]

Sunset publishes a series that breaks up climate zones more finely than the USDA zones, identifying 45 distinct zones in the US, incorporating ranges of temperatures in all seasons, precipitation, wind patterns, elevation, and length and structure of the growing season.[18]

In addition, the Köppen climate classification system can be used as a more general guide to growing conditions when considering large areas of the Earth's surface or attempting to make comparisons between different continents.[19] The Trewartha climate classification is often a good "real world" concept of climates and their relation to plants and their average growing conditions.[citation needed]

Australian hardiness zones

[edit]

The Australian National Botanic Gardens have devised another system keeping with Australian conditions. The zones are defined by steps of 5 degrees Celsius, from −15–−10 °C for zone 1 to 15–20 °C for zone 7.[20] They are numerically about 6 lower than the USDA system. For example, Australian zone 3 is roughly equivalent to USDA zone 9. The higher Australian zone numbers had no US equivalents prior to the 2012 addition by USDA of zones 12 and 13.

The spread of weather stations may be insufficient and too many places with different climates are lumped together. Only 738 Australian stations have records of more than ten years (one station per 98,491 hectares or 243,380 acres), though more populated areas have relatively fewer hectares per station. Mount Isa has three climatic stations with more than a ten-year record. One is in zone 4a, one in zone 4b, and the other is in zone 5a. Sydney residents are split between zones 3a and 4b. Different locations in the same city are suitable for different plants.

Canadian hardiness zones

[edit]

Climate variables that reflect the capacity and detriments to plant growth are used to develop an index that is mapped to Canada's Plant Hardiness Zones.[21] This index comes from a formula originally developed by Ouellet and Sherk in the mid-1960s.[22][23][24]

The formula used is: Y = -67.62 + 1.734X1 + 0.1868X2 + 69.77X3 + 1.256X4+ 0.006119X5 + 22.37X6 - 0.01832X7

where:

  • Y = estimated index of suitability
  • X1 = monthly mean of the daily minimum temperatures (°C) of the coldest month
  • X2 = mean frost free period above 0 °C in days
  • X3 = amount of rainfall (R) from June to November, inclusive, in terms of R/(R+a) where a=25.4 if R is in millimeters and a=1 if R is in inches
  • X4 = monthly mean of the daily maximum temperatures (°C) of the warmest month
  • X5 = winter factor expressed in terms of (0 °C – X1)Rjan where Rjan represents the rainfall in January expressed in mm
  • X6 = mean maximum snow depth in terms of S/(S+a) where a=25.4 if S is in millimeters and a=1 if S is in inches
  • X7 = maximum wind gust in (km/h) in 30 years.
City Canadian Zone[21] USDA Zone[21]
Calgary 4a 4a
Edmonton 4a 3b
Halifax 6b 6a
Montreal 6a 4b
Ottawa 5b 4b
Saskatoon 3b 3a
St. John's 6a 7a
Toronto 7a 5b
Vancouver 8b 8b
Victoria 9a 9a
Winnipeg 4a 3b
Yellowknife 0a 2a

For practical purposes, Canada has adopted the American hardiness zone classification system. The 1990 version of the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map included Canada and Mexico, but they were removed with the 2012 update to focus on the United States and Puerto Rico.[8] The Canadian government publishes both Canadian and USDA-style zone maps.[21]

European hardiness zones

[edit]

Selected European cities

[edit]

The table below provides USDA hardiness zone data for selected European cities:

City Zone
Amsterdam, Netherlands[25] 8b
Barcelona, Spain[26] 10a
Belgrade, Serbia[27] 7b/8a
Bratislava, Slovakia[28] 7a/7b
Bucharest, Romania[29] 7a/7b
Catania, Italy[30] 9b/10a
Dublin, Ireland[31] 8b/9a
Edinburgh, Scotland, UK[31] 8a/8b
Glasgow, Scotland, UK[31] 8b
Helsinki, Finland[32] 6b
Kaliningrad, Russia[33] 6b/7a
Kraków, Poland[34] 7a
Lisbon, Portugal[35] 10b
London, England[31] 8b/9a
Ljubljana, Slovenia[36] 7b
Madrid, Spain[26] 9a
Manchester, England[31] 8b
Milan, Italy[30] 9a
Moscow, Russia[33] 5a
Paris, France[37] 8b/9a
Portsmouth, England[31] 9a
Prague, Czech Republic[38] 7b
Riga, Latvia[39] 6b
Rome, Italy[30] 9b
Rovaniemi, Finland[32] 4a
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina[40] 7a/7b
Simferopol, Ukraine[41] 6b
Sochi, Russia[33] 9a
Stockholm, Sweden[42] 7a/7b
Tallinn, Estonia[43] 6a/6b
Tuapse, Russia[33] 8b
Trondheim, Norway[44] 7b
Valencia, Spain[26] 10a
Vienna, Austria[45] 7b/8a
Vorkuta, Russia[33] 2a/2b
Warsaw, Poland[34] 6b
Zurich, Switzerland[46] 7b/8a
Antwerp, Belgium[47] 8a
Belfast, Northern Ireland[31] 8b/9a
Berlin, Germany[48] 7a
Birmingham, England[31] 8b
Cardiff, Wales[31] 8b/9a
Copenhagen, Denmark[49] 8a/8b
Düsseldorf, Germany[48] 8a
Funchal, Portugal[35] 11b
Gdańsk, Poland[34] 7a
Hamburg, Germany[50] 8a
Istanbul, Turkey[51] 8b/9a[52]
La Coruña, Spain[26] 10b
Las Palmas, Spain[53] 12b
Marseille, France[37] 9a/9b
Minsk, Belarus[54] 5a
Munich, Germany[48] 6b
Murmansk, Russia[33] 4a
Newcastle, England, UK[31] 8a/8b
Nicosia, Cyprus[55] 9b
Oslo, Norway[44] 7a
Palermo, Italy[30] 10b/11a
Plymouth, England, UK[31] 9a/9b
Porto, Portugal[35] 10a
Poznań, Poland[34] 6b
Reykjavík, Iceland[56] 7b/8a
Saint Petersburg, Russia[33] 5a
Simrishamn, Sweden[42] 8a
Sofia, Bulgaria[57] 6b/7a
Strasbourg, France[37] 8a
Thessaloniki, Greece[58] 8b/9a
Tromsø, Norway[44] 7a/7b
Umeå, Sweden[42] 5a/5b
Valletta, Malta[59] 10b
Vilnius, Lithuania[60] 5b/6a
Wroclaw, Poland[34] 6b
Zagreb, Croatia[61] 7b/8a
Yalta, Ukraine[41] 9a

Britain and Ireland

[edit]

USDA zones do not work particularly well in Ireland and Great Britain as they are designed for continental climates and subtropical climates.[62] The high latitude, weaker solar intensity, and cooler summers must be considered when comparing to US equivalent. New growth may be insufficient or fail to harden off affecting winter survival in the shorter and much cooler summers of Ireland and Britain.[62]

Britain and Ireland's hardiness zones, USDA scale, 2006

Owing to the moderating effect of the North Atlantic Current on the Irish and British temperate maritime climate, Britain, and Ireland even more so, have milder winters than their northerly position would otherwise afford. This means that the USDA hardiness zones relevant to Britain and Ireland are quite high, from 7 to 10, as shown below.[63]

  1. In Scotland the Grampians, Northwest Highlands and locally in the Southern Uplands; in England the Pennines; and in Wales the highest part of Snowdonia.
  2. Most of England, Wales and Scotland, parts of central Ireland, and Snaefell on the Isle of Man.
  3. Most of western and southern England and Wales, western Scotland, also a very narrow coastal fringe on the east coast of Scotland and northeast England (within 5 km (3.1 mi) of the North Sea), London, the West Midlands Urban Area, most of Ireland, and most of the Isle of Man.
  4. Very low-lying coastal areas of the southwest of Ireland and the Isles of Scilly.

In 2012 the United Kingdom's Royal Horticultural Society introduced new hardiness ratings for plants, not places. These run from H7, the hardiest (tolerant of temperatures below −20 °C (−4 °F)) to H1a (needing temperatures above 15 °C (59 °F)).[64] The RHS hardiness ratings are based on absolute minimum winter temperatures (in °C) rather than the long-term average annual extreme minimum temperatures that define USDA zones.[64]

Scandinavia and Baltic Sea Region

[edit]

Scandinavia lies at the same latitude as Alaska or Greenland, but the effect of the warm North Atlantic Current is even more pronounced here than it is in Britain and Ireland. Save for a very small spot around Karasjok Municipality, Norway, which is in zone 2, nowhere in the Arctic part of Scandinavia gets below zone 3. The Faroe Islands, at 62–63°N are in zone 8, as are the outer Lofoten Islands at 68°N. Tromsø, a coastal city in Norway at 70°N, is in zone 7, and even Longyearbyen, the northernmost true city in the world at 78°N, is still in zone 4. All these coastal locations have one thing in common, though, which are cool, damp summers, with temperatures rarely exceeding 20 °C (68 °F), or 15 °C (59 °F) in Longyearbyen. This shows the importance of taking heat zones into account for better understanding of what may or may not grow. Milder parts of western Norway are in zone 9, and Sarpsborg south of Oslo at 59°N with more continental summers are in zone 8. Inland it gets colder in winter, Hamar at 61°N is in zone 6 and Røros further north is zone 4.

A garden in Simrishamn, southern Sweden.

In Sweden and Finland generally, at sea level to 500 metres (1,600 ft), zone 3 is north of the Arctic Circle, including cities like Karesuando and Pajala. Kiruna is the major exception here, which being located on a hill above frost traps, is in zone 5. Zone 4 lies between the Arctic Circle and about 64–66°N, with cities such as Oulu, Rovaniemi and Jokkmokk, zone 5 (south to 61–62°N) contains cities such as Tampere, Umeå, and Östersund. Zone 6 covers the south of mainland Finland, Sweden north of 60°N, and the high plateau of Småland further south. Here one will find cities such as Gävle, Örebro, Sundsvall, and Helsinki. Åland, as well as coastal southern Sweden, and the Stockholm area are in zone 7. The west coast of Sweden (Gothenburg and southwards) enjoys particularly mild winters and lies in zone 7, therefore being friendly to some hardy exotic species (found, for example, in the Gothenburg Botanical Garden), the southeast coast of Sweden has a colder winter due to the absence of the Gulf Stream.

Central Europe

[edit]
Hardiness zones of Europe and surrounding regions
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11

Central Europe is a good example of a transition from an oceanic climate to a continental climate, which reflects in the tendency of the hardiness zones to decrease mainly eastwards instead of northwards. Also, the plateaus and low mountain ranges in this region have a significant impact on how cold it might get during winter. Generally speaking, the hardiness zones are high considering the latitude of the region, although not as high as Northern Europe with the Shetland Islands where zone 9 extends to over 60°N.

In Central Europe, the relevant zones decrease from zone 8 on the Belgian, Dutch, and German North Sea coast, with the exception of some of the Frisian Islands (notably Vlieland and Terschelling), the island of Helgoland, and some of the islands in the Rhine-Scheldt estuary, which are in zone 9, to zone 5 around Suwałki, Podlachia on the far eastern border between Poland and Lithuania. Some isolated, high elevation areas of the Alps and Carpathians may even go down to zone 3 or 4.

An extreme example of a cold sink is Funtensee, Bavaria which is at least in zone 3. Another notable example is Waksmund, a small village in the Polish Carpathians, which regularly reaches −35 °C (−31 °F) during winter on calm nights when cold and heavy airmasses from the surrounding Gorce and Tatra Mountains descend down the slopes to this low-lying valley, creating extremes which can be up to 10 °C (18 °F) colder than nearby Nowy Targ or Białka Tatrzańska, which are both higher up in elevation. Waksmund is in zone 3b while nearby Kraków, only 80 km (50 mi) to the north and 300 m (980 ft) lower is in zone 6a. These examples prove that local topography can have a pronounced effect on temperature and thus on what is possible to grow in a specific region.[65]

Southern Europe

[edit]

The southern European marker plant for climate as well as cultural indicator is the olive tree, which cannot withstand long periods below freezing so its cultivation area matches the cool winter zone. The Mediterranean Sea acts as a temperature regulator, so this area is generally warmer than other parts of the continent; except in mountainous areas where the sea effect lowers, it belongs in zones 8–10; however, southern Balkans (mountainous Western and Eastern Serbia, continental Croatia, and Bulgaria) are colder in winter and are in zones 6–7. The Balkan area is also more prone to cold snaps and episodes of unseasonable warmth. For instance, despite having similar daily means and temperature amplitudes to Nantucket, Massachusetts, for each month, Sarajevo has recorded below-freezing temperatures in every month of the year. [66][67]

The Croatian (Dalmatian) coast, Albania, and northern Greece are in zones 8–9, as are central-northern Italy (hills and some spots in Po Valley are however colder) and southern France; Central Iberia is 8–9 (some highland areas are slightly colder). The Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic coast, much of Andalusia and Murcia, coastal and slightly inland southern Valencian Community, a part of coastal Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, southwestern Sardinia, most of Sicily, coastal southern Italy, some areas around Albania,[68][69] coastal Cyprus and southwestern Greece are in zone 10.

In Europe, the zone 11a is limited only to a few spots. In the Iberian Peninsula, it can be found on the southern coast, in small Spanish areas inside the provinces of Almería, Cádiz, Granada, Málaga and Murcia.[53] In Portugal, zone 11a can be found in the Southwest on a few unpopulated sites around the municipalities of Lagos and Vila do Bispo.[70] In mainland Greece, zone 11a can be found in Monemvasia and also in areas of Crete, the Dodecanese, Cyclades and some Argo-Saronic Gulf islands.[71][72] The Mediterranean islands of Malta, Lampedusa and Linosa belong to zone 11a as well as a few areas on the southernmost coast of Cyprus.[citation needed]

Macaronesia

[edit]

Macaronesia consists of four archipelagos: The Azores, the Canary Islands, Cape Verde and Madeira. At lower altitudes and coastal areas, the Portuguese Azores and Madeira belong to zones 10b/11b and 11a/11b respectively. The Azores range from 9a to 11b and Madeira ranges from 9b to 12a, 9a and 9b found inland on the highest altitudes such as Mount Pico in the Azores or Pico Ruivo in Madeira.[73] The Spanish Canary Islands hardiness zones range from 8a to 12b depending on the location and the altitude. The islands are generally part of zones 11b/12a in lower altitudes and coastal areas, reaching up to 12b in the southernmost coasts or populated coastal parts such as the city of Las Palmas. The lowest hardiness areas are found in Teide National Park being at 8a/8b for its very high altitude. Teide peak is the highest peak of Macaronesia.[53]

The Cape Verde islands, located much further south inside the tropics, have hardiness zones that range from 12 to 13 in the coastal areas, while the lowest hardiness zone is found in the island of Fogo, in the country's highest peak Pico do Fogo.[citation needed]

American Horticultural Society heat zones

[edit]

In addition to the USDA Hardiness zones there are American Horticultural Society (AHS) heat zones.

The criterion is the average number of days per year when the temperature exceeds 30 °C (86 °F). The AHS Heat Zone Map for the US is available on the American Horticultural Society website.[74][75]

Zone From To
1 < 1
2 1 7
3 8 14
4 15 30
5 31 45
6 46 60
7 61 90
8 91 120
9 121 150
10 151 180
11 181 210
12 >210

South Africa

[edit]

South Africa has five horticultural or climatic zones. The zones are defined by minimum temperature.[76]

Effects of climate change

[edit]

The USDA map published in 2012 shows that most of the US has become a half zone (2.8 °C or 5 °F) hotter in winter compared to the 1990 release.[8] Again, with the publication of the 2023 map, about half of the US has shifted a half zone warmer.[77] Research in 2016 suggests that USDA plant hardiness zones will shift even further northward under climate change.[78]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A hardiness zone is a geographic area defined by its average annual extreme minimum winter , a key determinant of which can survive and thrive in that without protection. These zones provide gardeners, horticulturists, and agriculturists with a standardized framework to select plant species likely to endure local winter conditions, focusing on cold hardiness as the primary factor. The predominant system, the (USDA) Plant Hardiness Zone Map, categorizes into 13 main zones ranging from 1 (coldest, with minima below -50°F or -46°C) to 13 (warmest, with minima above 40°F or 4°C), further subdivided into 5°F (about 3°C) half-zones labeled 'a' and 'b'. Developed initially in the mid-20th century and periodically updated with refined climate data, the map relies on 30-year averages of the lowest winter temperatures recorded at weather stations, enabling precise local assessments down to a half-mile resolution. The 2023 edition, based on data from 1991 to 2020, reflects observed increases in minimum temperatures, resulting in warmer zone shifts for much of the compared to prior versions. While invaluable for perennial selection, hardiness zones have limitations, as they emphasize only average cold extremes and do not incorporate variables such as summer heat, humidity, soil drainage, wind exposure, snow cover, or microclimates that can influence plant viability. Analogous systems exist internationally, adapted to regional climates, such as those in and the , but the USDA framework remains the global benchmark influencing horticultural practices worldwide.

Fundamental Concepts

Definition and Purpose

A hardiness zone delineates geographic regions according to their average annual extreme minimum winter , serving as a key metric for evaluating the cold tolerance required for survival. These zones categorize areas into bands typically spanning 10°F (-12.2°C), with finer subdivisions of 5°F (-8.3°C), derived from long-term meteorological data such as 30-year averages of the coldest recorded winter temperatures. The concept focuses on the physiological limits of perennial , trees, and shrubs, where the zone's minimum threshold indicates whether a species can endure without lethal damage to roots, stems, or buds. The primary purpose of hardiness zones is to guide horticultural and agricultural decision-making by matching plant selections to local climatic rigors, thereby minimizing cultivation failures and optimizing resource use in , , and farming. Developed initially for practical application , the system—most notably the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map—enables growers to predict plant viability based on empirical extremes, though it emphasizes that zones represent averages and do not fully capture variables like microclimates, drainage, wind exposure, or summer conditions. By standardizing cold hardiness assessments, zones facilitate evidence-based planting recommendations, with the USDA's framework updated periodically using expanded to reflect observed climatic shifts, such as warmer minima in recent decades.

Temperature Ranges and Zone Designations

![USDA Hardiness Zone Temperature Scale](./ assets/USDAHardiness_2012-2015_Scale.jpg) Plant hardiness zones are delineated based on the extreme minimum winter , serving as a primary indicator of a location's capacity to support survival. In the predominant USDA system, zones are designated from 1 to 13, where each full zone encompasses a 10°F range of these minimum temperatures, further subdivided into "a" (colder) and "b" (warmer) subzones differing by 5°F. This designation enables gardeners and horticulturists to select suited to local cold tolerance requirements. The specific temperature ranges for USDA zones are as follows:
ZoneTemperature Range (°F)
1Below −50
2a−50 to −45
2b−45 to −40
3a−40 to −35
3b−35 to −30
4a−30 to −25
4b−25 to −20
5a−20 to −15
5b−15 to −10
6a−10 to −5
6b−5 to 0
7a0 to 5
7b5 to 10
8a10 to 15
8b15 to 20
9a20 to 25
9b25 to 30
10a30 to 35
10b35 to 40
11a40 to 45
11b45 to 50
12a50 to 55
12b55 to 60
13Above 60
These ranges reflect the 1990–2020 climate data used in the latest USDA map, accounting for observed warming trends that shifted many areas into warmer zones compared to prior iterations. While the USDA framework emphasizes cold hardiness, analogous systems elsewhere, such as the Royal Horticultural Society's scale in the UK, employ similar temperature-based designations but may adjust intervals or reference periods to regional climates. For instance, UK zones range from H1 (minimum 15°C or 59°F) to H7 (minimum -15°C to -10°C or 5°F to 14°F), prioritizing frost risk over absolute minima in milder maritime conditions.

Interrelation with Plant Physiology

Plant cold hardiness, the physiological capacity to endure subzero temperatures without lethal cellular damage, underpins the temperature thresholds defining hardiness zones. This tolerance primarily arises from adaptations preventing intracellular formation, such as extracellular freezing where nucleates in apoplasts, leading to cellular and solute concentration that lowers freezing points. , wherein protoplasts remain unfrozen below -40°C in some , further enhances survival by delaying , though it risks rapid propagation if breached. These mechanisms are genetically determined and vary by , with woody perennials often exhibiting greater hardiness than herbaceous due to structural lignification and bark insulation. Cold acclimation, induced by prolonged exposure to non-freezing low temperatures (typically 0–10°C) coupled with shortening photoperiods, reprograms to bolster these defenses. Key physiological shifts include accumulation of compatible solutes like sugars and for osmotic adjustment, synthesis of and dehydrin proteins that stabilize and prevent protein denaturation, and remodeling of lipids to maintain fluidity. For instance, to glucose in woody tissues can depress tissue freezing points by up to 10–15°C, enabling survival in zones with minima of -30°C or lower. Deacclimation reverses these changes upon warming, rendering vulnerable if freezes follow mild spells, a amplified in marginal zones. Dormancy stages profoundly modulate hardiness; endodormancy confers maximal tolerance, while ecodormancy allows partial acclimation, linking zone suitability to seasonal timing. systems, often less hardy than shoots (tolerating 5–10°C warmer minima), impose additional constraints, as insulation varies but generally lags aerial acclimation. Empirical tests, such as artificial freeze assays on acclimated tissues, quantify these limits, informing zone ratings: a hardy to zone 5 (minima -29 to -23°C) withstands such stress via integrated physiological responses, whereas non-acclimated tissues fail at higher thresholds. Latitudinal origins correlate with evolved hardiness, with boreal species exhibiting superior solute mobilization and gene regulation, such as CBF transcription factors activating downstream cold-responsive genes. Thus, hardiness zones serve as proxies for matching locations to plants' physiological tolerances, though microclimatic factors like cover (insulating roots) or (enhancing stress) can modulate outcomes beyond zone predictions. Over-reliance on zones without considering acclimation status or physiological variability risks misattribution of failure to alone, as evidenced by differential survival in controlled vs. field trials.

Historical Development

Origins in Horticultural Mapping

The systematic mapping of geographic regions for plant hardiness originated from the practical needs of horticulturists in the early , who sought to predict the survival of cultivated species amid expanding ornamental and arboreal plantings across . Prior to formalized zones, gardeners and botanists relied on anecdotal observations and local trials to assess tolerance, but the growing scale of nursery operations and demanded a more empirical framework tied to measurable climatic variables, particularly average annual minimum winter temperatures. This led to the first comprehensive hardiness zone map in 1927, developed by Alfred Rehder, a German-American dendrologist at Harvard University's . Rehder's map, published as an appendix to his Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs Hardy in , divided the and parts of into eight broad zones based on interpolated data and surveys of survivability in botanical collections and private gardens. Rehder's emphasized first-hand data from over 1,000 cultivated , correlating observed winterkill patterns with recorded minima to delineate latitudinal bands where could reliably persist without protection. Zones were defined in roughly 10°F increments, starting from the warmest (Zone I, minima above 5°F/-15°C) to the coldest (Zone VIII, minima below -35°F/-37°C), though boundaries were approximate due to limited station density and variability in microclimates. This approach marked a shift from qualitative descriptions in earlier horticultural texts to quantitative spatial mapping, enabling nursery catalogs and architects to recommend by region rather than vague suitability claims. Rehder acknowledged influences from 19th-century biogeographers like , whose isotherms and altitudinal vegetation profiles had established causal links between temperature gradients and distributions, but adapted them for horticultural utility by focusing on cultivated exotics' limits in temperate climates. These early maps highlighted the limitations of temperature alone, as Rehder noted factors like soil drainage and wind exposure affected outcomes, yet they laid the groundwork for subsequent refinements by underscoring the value of aggregated empirical over isolated trials. By standardizing survivability predictions, Rehder's work facilitated interstate plant trade and reduced economic losses from mismatched introductions, influencing and extension services to adopt zonal thinking in propagation advice. Subsequent iterations at the , including revisions by Donald Wyman in , built directly on this foundation, incorporating denser weather networks to refine boundaries while preserving the core principle of minimum as the primary delimiter for cold-hardy .

Evolution of the USDA System

The (USDA) first published its Plant Hardiness Zone Map in 1960, establishing a standardized system to classify regions based on average annual extreme minimum winter temperatures recorded at approximately 450 weather stations across the country. This inaugural map divided the into 10 zones, each spanning a 10°F range (e.g., Zone 5: -20°F to -10°F), providing horticulturists with a tool to predict plant survival primarily driven by cold tolerance rather than other factors like or summer . The methodology relied on historical data without advanced , resulting in broader, less granular zone boundaries compared to later iterations. The system underwent its first major revision in 1990, led by Henry M. Cathey of the USDA, which incorporated temperature averages from 1974–1986 across thousands of stations to refine zone delineations and address limitations in the original map's data coverage. This update introduced half-zone subdivisions (e.g., 5a and 5b) differentiated by 5°F intervals, enhancing precision for microclimatic variations, particularly in diverse terrains. While the core 10°F zone structure persisted, the revised map reflected slight warming trends in some areas but maintained coarser resolution due to manual averaging techniques. A significant advancement occurred in 2012, when the USDA collaborated with Oregon State University's Climate Group to produce a higher-resolution using 30-year averages (1976–2005) from 7,983 stations, including remote automated systems like SNOTEL and RAWS. Employing climatologically aided that accounted for , coastal proximity, and effects, the achieved an 800-meter grid resolution for the conterminous U.S., revealing finer spatial details such as mountainous microzones previously smoothed over. This iteration documented a general half-zone shift to warmer designations in many regions, attributable to the updated baseline period's higher minimum temperatures. The 2023 update, released by the , built on these foundations by analyzing 1991–2020 data to capture more recent climatic shifts, maintaining the 10°F zones and 5°F half-zones while leveraging vastly expanded station networks for unprecedented detail. The map's interactive, GIS-based format allows zip-code queries and visualizes an average 2.5°F increase in minimum temperatures since the 2012 version, with about half the U.S. shifting to warmer zones—effects most pronounced in the Northeast, Midwest, and West due to reduced cold extremes. Methodological refinements emphasized empirical extremes over modeled projections, prioritizing observed data for causal accuracy in plant selection.

International Adaptations and Divergences

The Canadian plant hardiness zone system, developed by Agriculture Canada in the early 1960s, adapted the core concept of temperature-based zoning from U.S. horticultural mapping but diverged significantly in methodology by employing a multivariate index. This index integrated seven climatic variables, including extreme minimum temperatures, frost-free period length, and precipitation accumulation during winter and growing seasons, derived from field observations of over 170 woody plant species' survival rates across experimental stations. Unlike the USDA's exclusive reliance on average annual extreme minimum temperatures, the Canadian approach accounted for precipitation's role in modulating cold damage through snow cover insulation and spring thaw risks, reflecting Canada's harsher continental winters and variable moisture regimes. Initial zones ranged from 0 (coldest, below -45.6°C) to 9 (mildest, above -6.7°C), with subdivisions, and the system was first mapped using 1931–1960 data, emphasizing empirical plant performance over pure isotherm mapping. In Europe, adaptations emerged later, with a pivotal 1984 map by botanists Walter Heinze and Dietrich Schreiber providing one of the earliest continent-wide frameworks for woody plant hardiness. This system delineated zones primarily based on long-term mean annual minimum temperatures, akin to the USDA model, but calibrated to European weather station data and adjusted for regional variations in continentality, elevation, and maritime influences. Zones spanned from H1 (below -45°C) to H8 (above -7°C), numerically offset by approximately 6 units lower than equivalent USDA designations due to differing baseline calibrations and inclusion of subzone modifiers for factors like wind exposure and soil drainage. The map, published in the Mitteilungen der Deutschen Dendrologischen Gesellschaft, drew on historical climatological records from over 1,000 stations, prioritizing dendrological evidence from arboreta to validate isotherms against observed plant dieback during events like the 1956 and 1963 cold waves. Australian adaptations, developing in the late amid expanding commercial , diverged more pronouncedly from the USDA template to accommodate the continent's arid interiors, monsoonal north, and Mediterranean south, where minimum temperatures alone fail to predict survival amid erratic rainfall and heat stress. Early efforts, such as those by the Australian National Botanic Gardens in the 1980s–1990s, overlaid USDA equivalents onto local climate data but introduced subzones for summer and wet-season flooding, effectively creating hybrid maps with 7–10 zones spanning USDA 7b to 11+. These systems incorporated empirical trials from regional trials, revealing that USDA zones underestimated risks from dry winters desiccating roots or humid summers fostering fungal pathogens, prompting divergences like rainfall-based modifiers absent in the original U.S. framework. Broader international divergences stem from recognition that the USDA's univariate focus on winter minima overlooks causal factors like prolonged duration, summer , and microsite variations, leading to over-optimistic predictions in non-temperate zones. For instance, while USDA updates refined resolution with denser station data (e.g., 13,412 sites by ), variants often prioritize integrated indices; Canadian and select European models validate against multi-decadal trial outcomes rather than solely meteorological proxies. Such adaptations, grounded in local agronomic data, highlight systemic limitations of exporting a U.S.-centric model without causal adjustments for divergent physiographic drivers of stress.

USDA Plant Hardiness Zone System

Methodology and Data Sources

The USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map delineates zones primarily according to the annual extreme minimum winter , calculated as the of the lowest temperature recorded each year over a 30-year climatological period. For the 2023 edition, this encompasses data from 1991 to 2020, with zones defined in 10°F increments (e.g., Zone 5 spans -20°F to -10°F) and subdivided into 5°F half-zones (e.g., 5a and 5b). This metric serves as a proxy for the coldest winter conditions likely to affect plant survival, though it excludes variables such as summer heat, humidity, soil conditions, or microclimates. Data for the map derive from 13,625 weather stations across the , including contributions from the and state networks in the eastern U.S., , and ; USDA , Forest Service, and Department of the Interior stations in the western U.S. and ; Environment ; Mexico's National Weather Service; and the Global Historical Climatology Network. Supplementary reanalysis datasets, such as the NCEP North American Regional Reanalysis for and NCAR/NCEP Reanalysis 1 for the conterminous U.S., fill gaps in observational coverage. All raw data undergo quality control to exclude anomalies before aggregation into annual extremes and subsequent averaging. Spatial interpolation employs the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model () developed by , which generates gridded estimates at approximately 0.5-mile resolution by incorporating topographic predictors like , proximity to water bodies, coastal influences, inversions, and complexity. The resulting GIS-based map was validated by climatologists, agricultural meteorologists, and horticultural experts to ensure fidelity to observed patterns, representing an advancement over the 2012 version through doubled station density (from about 7,983) and refined resolution, particularly in .

The 2023 Update and Recent Refinements

The released the updated Plant Hardiness Zone Map on November 15, 2023, marking the first revision since 2012. This iteration, developed in collaboration with the Climate Group at , incorporates 30-year averages (1991–2020) of the annual extreme minimum winter temperatures, shifting the baseline from the 1976–2005 period used previously. Key methodological refinements include data from 13,412 weather stations—more than double the 7,983 stations in the 2012 map—enhancing to approximately 0.5-mile grid cells via PRISM's algorithms. These algorithms account for topographic factors such as , coastal proximity, and variations (e.g., ridges, slopes, valleys), supplemented by high-elevation reanalysis data from sources like the . The resulting interactive GIS-based map offers finer detail, particularly in regions like Alaska's uplands, where resolution improved from 6.25 square miles to 0.25 square miles. Zone designations reflect these updates, with approximately half of the reclassified into warmer half-zones, corresponding to an average 2.5°F increase in extreme minimum temperatures compared to the prior map. Two new zones were introduced—Zone 12 (above 50°F) and Zone 13 (above 60°F)—primarily applicable to southern areas like and . While the core focus remains on winter minima, the enhanced dataset improves predictive accuracy for plant survival without altering the fundamental 10°F zone and 5°F half-zone structure. The USDA website now includes a "Tips for Growers" section to aid practical application.

Zone Descriptions and Selected Examples

The USDA Plant Hardiness Zones classify geographic areas according to their average annual extreme minimum winter temperatures, measured over a 30-year period from 1991 to 2020 in the 2023 update. Each principal zone covers a 10°F range, further divided into 'a' and 'b' subzones of 5°F each, enabling finer distinctions in plant suitability. These designations primarily inform the selection of plants capable of withstanding the local winter lows without significant damage, though factors like soil drainage, wind exposure, and summer conditions also influence survival. The following table summarizes the temperature ranges for the zones:
ZoneTemperature Range (°F)
1a-60 to -55
1b-55 to -50
2a-50 to -45
2b-45 to -40
3a-40 to -35
3b-35 to -30
4a-30 to -25
4b-25 to -20
5a-20 to -15
5b-15 to -10
6a-10 to -5
6b-5 to 0
7a0 to 5
7b5 to 10
8a10 to 15
8b15 to 20
9a20 to 25
9b25 to 30
10a30 to 35
10b35 to 40
11a40 to 45
11b45 to 50
12a50 to 55
12b55 to 60
13a60 to 65
13b65 and above
These ranges reflect the coldest winter temperatures plants must endure, with colder zones (1-4) limited to extremely hardy species such as certain conifers and alpine perennials, while warmer zones (9-13) accommodate subtropical and tropical flora. Selected examples illustrate zone applications: Zone 3a regions, such as interior Alaska and northern Minnesota, experience minima of -40°F to -35°F and support plants like the paper birch (Betula papyrifera), which tolerates such extremes through adaptations like deep root systems and bark insulation. In Zone 7a, with minima of 0°F to 5°F, tree fruits such as apples (Malus spp.), pears (Pyrus spp.), peaches (Prunus persica), plums (Prunus spp.), cherries (Prunus spp.), and nectarines thrive, provided adequate chill hours and site conditions. In Zone 7b, covering areas like central Virginia with 5°F to 10°F minima, deciduous trees such as oaks (Quercus spp.) and fruit-bearing species like peaches (Prunus persica) thrive, provided they receive adequate chill hours. Zone 10a locales, including southern Florida with 30°F to 35°F lows, favor citrus varieties (Citrus spp.) that require minimal winter protection but are vulnerable to rare freezes below 28°F.

Practical Applications and Tools

The USDA Plant Hardiness Zone system aids gardeners, landscapers, and agricultural professionals in selecting plants, trees, shrubs, and certain crops capable of surviving local average annual extreme minimum winter temperatures. Users match plant hardiness ratings—typically provided by nurseries or seed catalogs—to their designated zone, often opting for plants rated one zone hardier to buffer against atypical cold snaps or variations. In practical , this guides , orchard establishment, and border planning, reducing replacement costs from winter kill; for instance, zone 6 gardeners avoid tender zone 8 perennials like certain varieties unless protected. Farmers apply zones to assess viability of fruit trees and woody ornamentals, integrating them with site-specific factors like elevation and soil drainage for decisions on varieties such as apples (e.g., selecting cold-hardy 'Honeycrisp' for zones 3-8). The system's emphasis on 30-year climatic averages supports long-term planning, though users must cross-reference with local frost dates and first/last freeze calculators from cooperative extension services to refine planting timelines. Key tools include the USDA's interactive online map, launched with the 2023 update, where users input a or geolocation to instantly retrieve zone data, enabling rapid plant compatibility checks. Downloadable high-resolution maps and GIS layers from the same platform allow offline use or integration into farm management software for broader applications like regional crop zoning. Complementary resources, such as university extension zone finders, provide embedded advice on adjustments for urban heat islands or sheltered gardens, enhancing accuracy beyond broad zonal averages.

International Hardiness Zone Systems

Canadian Hardiness Zones

The Canadian plant hardiness zone system, developed by in the early 1960s, classifies regions based on climatic suitability for plant survival, extending from zone 0 in the to zone 9 in coastal . Unlike systems focused solely on winter extremes, it employs a multivariate hardiness index incorporating seven key factors: the mean temperature of the coldest month, mean annual extreme minimum temperature, frost-free period, mean temperature, mean temperature, annual , and . Each zone spans 10 index units, subdivided into 'a' (lower half) and 'b' (upper half) subzones, with zone 0 reserved for the harshest northern conditions where mean annual temperatures fall below -12.2°C. This approach addresses limitations of temperature-only models by accounting for summer conditions and moisture, which influence vigor and resistance in Canada's variable . For instance, the index weights extreme minimum temperatures heavily but adjusts for shorter growing seasons in the Prairies, where adequate is critical for perennials. Maps derived from this system, first published in and refined in subsequent editions, delineate zones using interpolated climate station data, revealing that over 55% of falls into zone 2 or lower, reflecting widespread cold snaps below -40°C. A 2025 update to the zones, utilizing 1991–2020 climate normals from , incorporated higher-resolution data to refine boundaries and assess warming trends. This revision shows modest northward shifts, such as portions of advancing from 5b to 6a, but persistent zone 3–4 dominance in the interior due to unmitigated winter lows and increased variability. The updated methodology also generates USDA-equivalent maps for cross-referencing, highlighting that Canadian zones typically rate one unit milder than USDA counterparts for equivalent locations, as the latter ignores non-temperature stressors like late frosts. In practice, the system guides nursery labeling and selection, with tools on the official portal allowing users to query zones by or /. Limitations persist, including underrepresentation of microclimates and , prompting supplemental use of site-specific observations for urban or coastal areas where effective zones may vary by 1–2 units. Empirical validation through field trials confirms higher predictive accuracy for Canadian-native species compared to imported USDA ratings.

Australian Hardiness Zones

Australia lacks a nationally standardized plant hardiness zone comparable to the USDA's, with horticulturists instead adapting international models or employing descriptive climate classifications tailored to local conditions. The continent spans USDA zones 7b to 11, corresponding to average annual extreme minimum temperatures from approximately -15°C to above 4.4°C, but these mappings overlook 's predominant challenges of summer heat, low , and irregular rainfall, which often determine viability more than winter lows. The Australian National Botanic Gardens developed a practical seven-zone framework in response to the coarseness of USDA coverage, utilizing data from 738 weather stations to calculate the average of each location's annual minimum temperatures over multi-decade periods. Zone 1 applies to alpine highlands in southeastern , where minima frequently drop below -10°C; Zone 2 covers tablelands in , , Victoria, and ; Zones 3 and 4 encompass much of the southern interior and coastal fringes from northward; Zones 5 and 6 extend to northern , above , and the coast; and Zone 7 includes remote northern islands with rare or absent frosts. This metric-based approach, employing 5°C increments in , refines the USDA's four-zone span for by accounting for elevation, latitude, and coastal moderation, though data sparsity (one station per roughly 100,000 hectares) limits precision in remote areas. In practice, Australian gardeners integrate hardiness assessments with five broad zones defined by organizations like suppliers and nurseries: cool temperate (southern highlands with regular frosts below -5°C), temperate (southeast coasts with occasional light frosts), subtropical (eastern seaboard with mild minima around 0°C to 5°C), arid (inland deserts with variable but generally above-freezing lows), and tropical (northern regions with minima seldom below 5°C). These align approximately with USDA zones—cool temperate to 4-8, subtropical to 9-10, and tropical to 10-11—but diverge in emphasizing heat duration over 30°C (up to 210+ days in northern zones) and , as evidenced by higher plant failure rates from than exposure. Local microclimates, such as urban heat islands or sheltered valleys, further necessitate site-specific adjustments beyond zonal guidelines.

European Hardiness Zones

![USDA hardiness zones of Europe][float-right] The European hardiness zone system primarily delineates regions based on the average annual extreme minimum winter temperatures, analogous to the USDA framework but tailored to continental European climates. This approach divides into approximately 11 zones, each spanning a 5-6°C range, from colder northern and mountainous areas to milder Mediterranean regions. For instance, much of falls within zones 7 to 8, where minimum temperatures range from -17.8°C to -6.7°C, while southern coastal areas align with zones 9 to 10, tolerating minima down to -1.1°C. These zones serve as a guideline for selecting woody , perennials, and trees likely to survive local winters, though they exclude factors like summer heat, humidity, or soil conditions. Recent analyses have refined these maps by incorporating mesoclimatic effects and updated data. A 2024 study by Wulff and Bouillon, utilizing 1991-2020 meteorological records, revealed a northward shift of zones by about half a zone compared to the 1951-1980 baseline, attributing this to rising temperatures from climatic changes. This adjustment enhances predictive accuracy for plant hardiness, particularly in varied topographies. Similarly, University researchers developed high-resolution (100m) winter hardiness zone maps integrating influences via local climate zones and E-OBS gridded data, demonstrating warmer urban minima that expand viable planting options in cities.
ZoneMinimum Temperature Range (°C)
2-45 to -40
3-40 to -34
4-34 to -28
5-28 to -23
6-23 to -17
7-17 to -12
8-12 to -6
9-6 to -1
10-1 to +4
11+4 to +10
National adaptations diverge from the continental model. In the , Horticultural Society employs an H-rating system from H1 (tender, requiring >10°C minima) to H7 (very hardy, < -15°C), calibrated specifically for British conditions and emphasizing shelter and regional variance over broad numerical zones. This reflects a broader European pattern where countries like France or Germany may reference local agrometeorological data, yet the temperature-based core remains consistent with USDA principles, facilitating cross-referencing despite geographic and data-source differences.

Systems in Other Regions

In regions beyond North America, Europe, Australia, and Canada, dedicated plant hardiness classification systems are rare, with practitioners frequently adapting the USDA framework by overlaying it onto local meteorological data focused on average annual minimum winter temperatures. This approach facilitates cross-regional plant recommendations but often requires adjustments for factors like elevation, humidity, and seasonal extremes not captured in the base model. For instance, global datasets enable zone mappings for continents such as and , where zones typically span from 1 to 13 based on minima from below -45.6°C in high-altitude or northern areas to above 15.6°C in equatorial lowlands. South Africa employs a distinct system from the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), which divides the country into nine horticultural zones emphasizing rainfall seasonality—summer-dominant, winter-dominant, aseasonal, or tropical—alongside frost severity rather than isolated temperature minima. This classification better suits the region's topographic diversity and precipitation-driven ecosystems; for example, Zone 1 covers summer-rainfall highveld with severe frost (minima below -5°C and up to 50+ frost days annually), supporting hardy grasses and bulbs, while Zone 9 designates frost-free tropical lowveld (minima above 5°C) ideal for subtropical fruits. Unlike USDA zones, SANBI's integrates causal elements like dry-season duration, reflecting empirical observations of plant stress from water scarcity over cold alone. New Zealand lacks a formal national hardiness system equivalent to the USDA or Australian standards, instead using approximate USDA mappings (ranging from 5a in southern inland areas to 12a in northern subtropical zones) tempered by local caveats. Minimum temperatures guide initial assessments, but discrepancies arise from milder summers and higher humidity; a locale with USDA zone 9 minima (-6.7°C to -1.1°C) may fail to ripen heat-dependent crops like certain stone fruits due to insufficient degree-days above 10°C, prompting nurseries to recommend trial planting or hybrid vigor over strict zonal adherence. In Asia, official systems are similarly absent, with China approximating USDA zones from 1a (-51.1°C minima in northern provinces) to 13b (above 18.3°C in southern ), derived from national weather station records since the 1960s. Southeast Asia and India follow suit via interpolated maps, though empirical critiques highlight underemphasis on monsoon variability and soil drainage. South America and much of Africa rely on analogous overlays, such as zones 8-13 across Andean highlands to Amazon basins or Saharan edges to Cape floristic regions, without standardized local refinements; these serve agricultural extension but show predictive gaps in microclimatic events like El Niño-induced frosts.

Complementary and Alternative Zoning Approaches

Heat and Summer Stress Zones

Heat and summer stress zones address the limitations of traditional cold hardiness systems by quantifying exposure to prolonged high temperatures, which can induce physiological stress in plants through mechanisms such as reduced photosynthesis, leaf scorching, and disrupted reproductive cycles. Unlike minimum winter temperatures, summer heat affects plant performance by accelerating evapotranspiration and limiting root uptake, particularly in regions with extended warm periods where cold-hardy species may fail despite surviving winters. Empirical observations indicate that heat stress thresholds around 86°F (30°C) correlate with decreased vigor in temperate perennials, necessitating separate zoning to predict summer survivability. The American Horticultural Society (AHS) established a standardized Plant Heat Zone Map in 1997, dividing North America into 12 zones based on the average annual number of "heat days"—defined as days reaching 86°F (30°C) or higher—derived from 30-year climate normals. Zone assignment reflects cumulative heat exposure, with lower numbers indicating minimal stress suitable for cool-climate natives and higher numbers for heat-adapted species. This system complements USDA cold hardiness zones by enabling gardeners to select cultivars tolerant to both extremes; for instance, a plant rated USDA Zone 5 (cold hardy to -20°F) but AHS Heat Zone 1 may thrive in northern gardens but succumb in southern ones due to summer desiccation.
AHS Heat ZoneAverage Heat Days per Year (>=86°F/30°C)
1Fewer than 1
21–7
38–14
415–30
531–45
646–60
761–90
891–120
9121–150
10151–180
11181–210
12More than 210
In practice, heat zones guide planting in humid subtropical areas, where species like certain azaleas ( spp.) perform poorly beyond Zone 7 due to heat-induced bud drop, as documented in regional trials. Integration with cold zones reveals mismatches; for example, the U.S. Southeast often spans USDA Zones 7–9 but AHS Heat Zones 8–9, restricting northern perennials like peonies (Paeonia spp.), which exhibit foliar burn after 60+ heat days. Recent refinements propose multi-dimensional incorporating heat alongside , with heat criteria using 90th-percentile maximums to capture extremes, improving predictive accuracy over single-factor models. Limitations include omission of nocturnal recovery periods and interactions, which amplify stress but vary microclimatically.

Multi-Factor Integrated Systems

Multi-factor integrated systems for plant hardiness incorporate variables beyond minimum winter temperatures, such as maximum summer heat, precipitation patterns, humidity, wind, , and growing season length, to provide more predictive assessments of plant survival and performance. These approaches recognize that cold tolerance alone insufficiently captures climatic stresses, as evidenced by empirical observations of plant failures in regions with adequate winter minima but excessive summer heat or aridity. For instance, the Sunset Climate Zone system, developed for the , delineates 24 primary zones (with subzones extending to 45 categories) based on at least nine factors including , , ocean proximity, rainfall distribution, and extremes. This system has demonstrated superior utility in diverse microclimates, such as coastal versus inland areas, where USDA zones overlap but outcomes differ due to humidity and fog influences. Complementing cold-based zones, the American Horticultural Society (AHS) Heat Zone Map introduces 12 zones defined by the average annual number of days with temperatures exceeding 86°F (30°C), a threshold linked to heat stress in temperate perennials. Integration of AHS heat zones with USDA cold zones allows gardeners to evaluate combined thermal stresses; for example, plants rated hardy to USDA zone 5 (average minima -20°F to -10°F) may falter in AHS heat zone 7 (60-90 heat days) without supplemental watering or shading, as supported by field trials showing elevated evapotranspiration and wilting in such conditions. Empirical data from long-term observations indicate that dual cold-heat zoning reduces misplanting errors by accounting for physiological limits, such as protein denaturation from prolonged high temperatures. Recent advancements propose fully multi-dimensional frameworks, classifying regions across four stress axes: (minimum temperatures), (maximum temperatures), dryness ( deficits relative to ), and (excess leading to or fungal issues). A study formalized these criteria using global climate datasets, deriving zone boundaries from thresholds of observed extremes to predict multi-stress . For example, a location might be rated as cold-hardy (zone 6 equivalent) but heat-vulnerable (zone 8) and dry-stressed (zone 4), guiding selection of cultivars bred for balanced tolerances, such as those with enhanced drought resistance via deeper systems. Validation against botanical records shows these integrated models outperform single-factor systems in rates under compound events, like the 2018 European heat-drought conjunction that caused widespread die-offs despite mild winters. Such systems emphasize causal interactions, prioritizing empirical thresholds over averaged norms to mitigate predictive failures in shifting climates.

Specialized Metrics (e.g., Chill Hours, Aridity)

Specialized metrics address physiological requirements beyond cold tolerance, incorporating factors such as winter chilling for and moisture balance for sustained growth. Chill hours measure the cold accumulation necessary for many temperate species to exit , while indices quantify the ratio of to demand, highlighting risks in semi-arid to arid environments. These metrics enable more precise selection and site matching, particularly where standard hardiness zones overlook summer stress or cues. Chill hours represent the total duration of winter temperatures between 32°F and 45°F (0°C and 7.2°C) that , especially trees, require to fulfill and ensure synchronized break, flowering, and development. Insufficient accumulation—often below 500–800 hours for low-chill varieties—results in delayed or irregular blooming, reduced yields, and heightened disease susceptibility, as observed in warmer regions like the U.S. Southeast where mild winters disrupt traditional cultivars. For instance, trees typically demand 200–1,000 hours, with southern varieties at the lower end and northern ones exceeding 800; apple varieties range from 800–1,700 hours, while sweet cherries require 800–1,200 hours to avoid uneven set. Calculation begins post-leaf fall, often November 1, using hourly data; advanced models like the system assign partial credits (e.g., full at 36–43°F, zero above 45°F or below 32°F, negative for highs above 60°F), while dynamic models account for chilling negation by warm spells, improving accuracy in variable climates. Agricultural extensions recommend matching local chill hour data—tracked via weather stations or models—to varietal needs, as mismatches contribute to commercial failures in shifting winters. Aridity metrics, particularly the aridity index (AI), evaluate climatic dryness as AI = annual divided by potential evapotranspiration (PET), where values below 0.20 denote hyper-arid conditions, 0.20–0.50 arid, and above 0.65 humid; this ratio directly informs irrigation demands and drought-resilient planting. In , low AI signals chronic water deficits that stunt root development and in moisture-sensitive crops, prompting selection of xerophytic species or supplemental watering; for example, AI trends show 27.9% of global land aridifying since 1960, exacerbating yield losses in rainfed systems. Recent frameworks propose integrating -based "dryness zones" into hardiness systems, classifying regions by annual moisture stress thresholds (e.g., PET exceeding by 2–5 times) alongside cold and heat, as empirical data link aridity to higher plant mortality in zones 7–10 where summer outpaces rainfall. Such metrics reveal limitations in temperature-only zones, where arid microclimates within the same band cause failures for mesic plants, guiding resilient in expanding .

Limitations and Empirical Critiques

Oversimplification of Climatic Variables

The USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map delineates regions using the average annual extreme minimum winter temperature from 30-year climate normals, assigning zones in 5°F (-15°C) increments within broader 10°F bands to indicate cold tolerance thresholds for plants. This methodology, while useful for woody species limited by winter lows, oversimplifies climatic influences by focusing exclusively on one variable, thereby neglecting summer maximum temperatures, which can exceed 86°F (30°C) for extended periods and induce stress, bolting, or reduced in sensitive taxa. Precipitation patterns, including seasonal droughts or excesses, further exacerbate this limitation, as low winter minima do not predict aridity-driven , root rot from waterlogging, or nutrient leaching, all of which compromise plant vigor independently of exposure. For example, in Mediterranean climates with Zone 8–9 ratings (mild winters averaging -12.2°C to -1.1°C), summer dryness can desiccate even cold-hardy , leading to higher mortality rates than alone would suggest. Complementary systems like the American Horticultural Society Heat Zone Map address this gap by classifying areas according to days above 86°F, revealing that some Zone 7 cold-hardy falter in Heat Zone 10+ environments due to cumulative . A 2024 analysis of 872 North American tree underscored these shortcomings, finding that traditional cold-based zones fail to capture vulnerabilities to , dryness, or high moisture, particularly for annuals bypassing winter or heat-intolerant perennials hit by early-season highs; the study proposed multidimensional zoning across cold, heat, dryness, and moisture criteria to better align predictions with empirical survival data. Such oversimplification contributes to mismatched plantings, where cold tolerance is met but holistic climatic demands—interacting with edaphic factors like and drainage—are ignored, resulting in suboptimal growth or failure in regions sharing the same zone designation but differing in summer regimes.

Microclimates, Extremes, and Site Factors

Microclimates refer to localized climatic variations within a broader hardiness zone, often differing by several degrees Fahrenheit due to topography, vegetation, and structures, which can enable plant survival beyond zonal predictions. For instance, south-facing slopes receive more solar radiation, raising minimum temperatures by 2–5°F (1–3°C) compared to north-facing areas, while urban heat islands from concrete and buildings can elevate lows by up to 10°F (5.5°C) in cities versus rural surroundings. Cold air drainage into valleys or low-lying gardens can create frost pockets 5–10°F (3–6°C) colder than hilltops, exacerbating winter kill for marginally hardy species. Extreme weather events, such as infrequent cold snaps or , further undermine zonal reliability, as zones rely solely on 30-year averages of annual minimum temperatures without weighting rare deviations that cause widespread mortality. A in the U.S. Midwest dropped temperatures to -30°F (-34°C) in areas zoned 5–6, killing rated hardy to -20°F (-29°C) despite prior survivals. Similarly, early summer heat domes exceeding 100°F (38°C) can desiccate tender growth in zones not accounting for such maxima, as documented in annual crop failures uncorrelated with winter minima. Site-specific factors like composition, exposure, and moisture retention interact causally with to influence hardiness, often overriding zonal classifications. Poorly drained soils retain ice longer into spring, delaying growth and inviting rot in of otherwise zone-appropriate, while -swept sites amplify during freezes, reducing effective hardiness by one full zone. gains of 100 meters typically lower by 0.6–1°C, creating de facto subzones; for example, montane gardens at 1,000–2,000 feet (300–600 m) in USDA zone 7 may behave like zone 6 due to persistent inversions. Proximity to large water bodies moderates extremes via thermal inertia, warming minima by 3–7°F (2–4°C) in coastal versus inland sites within the same zone. These elements necessitate empirical observation over zonal maps alone for predictive accuracy.

Evidence of Predictive Failures

Plant survival predictions based on hardiness zones have faltered in regions where map classifications underestimated the frequency of extreme cold events relative to long-term averages. In Washington's Walla Walla Valley, the 1990 USDA Hardiness Zone Map (PHZM) designated the area as zone 7a, implying lower risk for cold-sensitive crops such as grapes, but climate data indicate that temperatures equivalent to zone 6a minima (-23.3°C to -20°C) occur roughly once every five years, resulting in documented grapevine kill and other winter injuries not aligned with the zone's projected tolerances. Interannual temperature variability further undermines predictive reliability, as standard deviations of 6–7°C in locations like Walla Walla lead to cold snaps that surpass zone minima despite average compliance. For example, such deviations suggest that even updated maps may encounter 1-in-8 to 1-in-12-year events cold enough to damage plants rated for the assigned zone, as observed in localized horticultural trials. Site-specific factors unaccounted for in zone delineations exacerbate these discrepancies. Desiccating winter winds can cause evergreen foliage browning and cambial damage in exposed , even within suitable zones, by promoting without sufficient uptake. Similarly, insufficient snow cover fails to insulate and crowns, allowing ground-level temperatures to drop below lethal thresholds for deemed zone-appropriate based on air minima alone, as evidenced in northern latitudes where bare exposure correlates with higher perennial mortality rates. Freeze-thaw cycles induce root heaving in poorly drained soils, uprooting or desiccating irrespective of overall zone hardiness, with extension reports noting elevated injury in landscapes matching zone ratings but lacking or windbreaks. Acclimation failures compound these issues; warm spells in late winter dehardy plants prematurely, rendering them vulnerable to subsequent freezes within zone parameters. Empirical observations from Midwestern and Northeastern U.S. landscapes document such "winter kill" in shrubs and trees, where cambium freezing follows thaws, contradicting zone-based expectations of survival. Container-grown plants, often overlooked in zone assessments, exhibit amplified failures due to rapid zone freezing, with even hardy species like pines succumbing at temperatures 20–30°C above in-ground lethal limits. These patterns highlight how zones' focus on averaged air temperatures overlooks dynamic physiological and micro-environmental interactions critical to actual outcomes.

Observed Climate Impacts and Zone Shifts

Observational records from the reveal a long-term decline in the frequency and intensity of extreme winter minimum temperatures since the early . Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) show that the number of days with minimum temperatures falling below -20°F (common in colder hardiness zones) has decreased by approximately 20-30% in many northern and midwestern stations from 1900 to 2020, with accelerated trends post-1970 coinciding with broader atmospheric warming. This warming of cold extremes outpaces seasonal mean temperature increases, as evidenced by reanalysis of daily minima across , where the coldest winter days have risen by 2-4°C (3.6-7.2°F) faster than averages in recent decades. In eastern , decadal variability in winter cold extremes has shortened since the , reducing the persistence of prolonged sub-zero spells that define zone boundaries. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm fewer extreme cold surges, with mid-latitude continental regions experiencing a 10-20% drop in the magnitude of minima below historical norms from 1950-2020, attributed to reduced cold air outbreaks. These shifts are not uniform; urban heat islands amplify local minima warming by 1-2°C in metropolitan areas, while rural stations show more modest changes, highlighting site-specific factors beyond zonal averages. Globally, land-based records from 1951-2015 indicate widespread warming of the coldest annual temperatures, with cold extreme indices (e.g., TXn, the minimum of daily maxima) increasing by 0.5-1°C per in mid-to-high latitudes. Midlatitude cold extremes have decreased in frequency and severity, consistent across observations and models, with human-induced forcings responsible for over 50% of the observed mildening in autumn-winter minima. In and , similar patterns emerge, though polar amplification leads to greater relative changes in high-latitude minima, potentially compressing zone distinctions in transitional areas. Despite these trends, episodic cold waves persist, as seen in the 2021 Texas event, underscoring that while averages shift, absolute minima retain variability from natural modes like ENSO.

Shifts in USDA and Global Maps

The (USDA) released an updated Plant Hardiness Zone Map on November 15, 2023, incorporating 30-year averages of the lowest annual winter temperatures from 1991 to 2020, drawn from 13,412 weather stations. This revision, compared to the 2012 map based on 1976–2005 data from 7,983 stations, shows approximately 50% of the U.S. population now residing in zones 0–5°F (half a zone) warmer, with the remainder unchanged, due to higher resolution mapping (e.g., ¼ in versus prior coarser grids) and updated temperature records. Officials caution that these adjustments stem partly from methodological enhancements and do not solely indicate long-term trends, as short-term variability and data refinements contribute to observed differences. Historically, USDA maps have evolved since the initial 1960 version, with major revisions in 1990 and 2012 also registering gradual northward expansions of warmer zones, aligning with recorded increases in winter minima over decades of instrumental observations. These updates enable more precise perennial plant recommendations but underscore the map's focus on empirical extremes rather than predictive modeling of future conditions. Globally, analogous hardiness systems exhibit comparable shifts. In , downscaled winter hardiness zone maps incorporating effects reveal substantial northward migrations of warmer zones since earlier baselines, driven by empirically warmer minimum s across the . Agro-climatic analyses confirm observed poleward displacements of suitable growing zones by several hundred kilometers over recent decades, based on station data from 1975–2016, though hardiness-specific maps lag behind U.S. standardization. Such patterns reflect regional temperature records without uniform global mapping protocols, limiting direct cross-continental comparisons.

Implications for Agriculture and Pests

Hardiness zones primarily inform agricultural practices by delineating regions where specific crops and perennials can reliably survive the average annual extreme minimum winter temperatures, guiding farmers in selecting varieties suited to local cold tolerance. In colder zones such as 3 to 5, agriculture favors hardy staples like potatoes, cabbage, and winter wheat, which endure temperatures down to -40°F (-40°C), whereas warmer zones 9 to 11 support subtropical crops including citrus and avocados that fail below 20°F (-7°C). The 2023 USDA map revision, reflecting a 2.5°F average increase in minimum temperatures over the prior 2012 version, has shifted approximately 15% of U.S. land to warmer zones, enabling northward expansion of heat-loving crops such as kiwis (37% increase in suitable land) and oranges in south-central states like Texas and Oklahoma under projected scenarios. However, these shifts disrupt chill-hour requirements for temperate fruits like apples and cherries, potentially reducing yields in regions such as Washington state by limiting proper dormancy and flowering. Zone designations also influence planting schedules, needs, and varietal breeding, as farmers adapt to the baselines that determine frost-free periods and growth seasons. Empirical adjustments in the south-central U.S. project that under high-emission scenarios (RCP8.5), 27% of land may transition from zone 9 to 10 by 2070–2099, opening opportunities for diverse orchards but risking heat stress on cool-season crops like , with yield declines of 17–24% per 2°C warming. Regarding pests, warmer hardiness zones diminish overwintering mortality for insects and pathogens, as reduced cold extremes allow greater survival rates and extended activity periods via increased . Southern pests such as the and have expanded northward, with milder winters enabling multiple generations and reduced natural die-off, as observed in northeastern states like . In the Pacific Northwest, zone shifts to 9a from 8b permit year-round persistence of borers like the bronze birch borer and western pine beetle, exacerbating damage to stressed trees. Projected expansions under climate scenarios further risk invasive pest distributions, necessitating enhanced monitoring and , as thermal suitability for overwintering aligns with host zone viability.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.