That's not going to work. Soil type has only a very, very tangential relationship with climate so nearly impossible to relate to a hardiness zone. And soils can change dramatically even within a very small geographical area.

The cultural information on the plants' requirements is available from various sources, especially with fruits - bloom time, chill hours, heat units, ripening/harvest dates, etc. It's just a matter of putting that together with your specific climate and growing conditions to get the proper combination. Otherwise, it's like trying to put round pegs into square holes :-)

As experienced gardeners, there's just a certain amount of information one has to have at hand to succeed, your own specific growing conditions being the biggest factor. Much of this is garnered from experience -- things like first and last frost dates (the typical measuring sticks of the growing season), how hot your summers tend to be, how cold the winters, average monthly rainfall, etc. -- but there are other sources to help you fill in this data. Your local extension service, Farmer's Almanac, local weather bureau are just a few. And the USDA heat zone map referenced above.

But all of this info is very site specific. This is where the term 'microclimate' comes into play -- conditions can change significantly within a small area based on topography, prevailing winds, proximity to bodies of water, even surrounding vegetation. There are just far too many variables to make any kind of detailed 'zone' information the slightest bit practical. About as close as one can get is the Sunset zone system, which does take into consideration some of these factors but again is only a 'guesstimate' of a plant's ability to thrive and produce in any given area.

What it comes down to is any zonal information, no matter how detailed, is only a guide not a rule book. Your own experience and knowledge, as well as that of neighboring gardeners sharing similar conditions, is always going to be your best reference material.

Soil types would be hard. In MI they vary quickly and often. It could not go by zip code. You would have to use address.
btw I have alkaline clay but grow blueberries fine. I have 7 plants, I use raised beds.
The USDA changed zones because of warming and it is turning out to be a huge mistake. We went from 5b to 6a, and we did get 5b temps last winter too.
I guess we know this anyway. I would think you could grow honeyberries, not sure I understand why not? Too much light?
Also nurseries seem to extend zones anyway, I have seen many plants labeled 5 and can't even grow in zone 6. So fixing the system would not correct that.

I used to use the Sunset system when I was in CA decades ago but I don't know what they consider in compiling it. A single number cannot work.

The planet is getting warmer, but that would just require updates every few years. Even Fox News is beginning to waffle, and in a few more years their people and all their favorite politicians will act as though they always believed the science.

That's politics for you, left or right (but more right in my opin. cause I'm a proud lefty albeit an unorthodox one) Of course, Florida may be under water by then- but they need Louisiana, Texas, etc, so they may not wait that long. Rising oceans are tough to ignore.

Go that right! The science shows we are cooling, as a scientist myself, I concur. It's kinda scary how fast the ice caps are growing.

'Scuse me?? On what planet are you living??

NASA disagrees with your contention that we are in a cooling trend: long term global warming trend

Even NOAA expresses a different viewpoint: warming climate indicators

There's a bit of a significant difference between weather extremes - like an exceptionally cold winter or increase in the severity of winter storms - than an overall cooling trend. Actually, weather extremes are closley related to the effects of climate warming.......surely as a scientist you should know this. Arctic warming can lead to a weakened jet stream resulting in more persistent weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. And Arctic sea ice loss can lead to an increase of snow on high-latitude land, which in turn impacts the jet stream resulting in cold Eurasian and North American winters. So as contradictory as it may seem, colder winters are a direct result of climate warming.

And the fact that the polar icecaps are shrinking - not growing - is undisputable. From NASA: collapse of west Antarctica ice sheet and also Arctic ice cap melting

And NOAA: Arctic ice changes with graphics.

Give it up, Drew. You really don't know what you are talking about. No one with any kind of reasonable intelligence can argue that rising sea levels - a direct result of climate warming and polar ice melt - is a good thing.

I already said what my general political perspective is, so if you think that's why I believe as I do, that's fine. Certainty is an emotion- people find the data they want to- you, me, everyone.

I didn't mean to start this up again, it's just that I just listened to a recently elected congress woman from Alaska talking about how obvious it is for Alaskans to see the affects of warming from the meltdown that is occurring there- she just claims the science of why isn't settled. I've been hearing more of this form that camp lately so I assumed there was a shift occurring, but I could well be wrong.

I agree with that as I already have stated, long term we are warming. No arguments from me.

I also agree with the other links. Yes the Antarctic should be decreasing this time of year. In winter, we need to see what happens. And if the Arctic when it starts to melt this winter, how much it will melt? Yes I agree with all of that as very true. It doesn't change my opinion in the least. It is as expected. If the Antarctic were not melting this time of year, I would be in a panic and moving as close to the equator as possible!

Hey so you don't agree, we can agree to disagree. I have no interest in convincing anybody. I just laid out my logic for my beliefs. You asked, I answered. Take it or leave it. I don't care.
One thing I would like to add, then I'm done is politicians make great amounts of money by regulating industry. If CO2 can be regulated, it's big bucks for politicians. Al Gore made 100 or 200 grand a year as a politician. When he left he was worth 100 million. He is worth about 300 million now. Says it all.

Hman, hey you're a good guy, I ,love ya man, no worries!
Gardengal is OK too. I just don't buy it I'm with the 31 thousand American scientists! (yes Hman, many with degrees don't buy it). Nasa presents it's data in a way to show what they want. They excuse the cooling trend. many abstracts about it are on the NOAA site.I worked with data all day, part of my job, if you look they are not including recent events (for example many of the abstracts end in 2009, and don't include recent years, it would mess up their conclusions!). I find it hysterical!
I'm going to attempt to explain in laymen's terms. If you check out the cooling trend abstracts on the NOAA site, they are from 1997 to 2009. The reason they do this is because statistically in this time period, you can dismiss trend as statistically insignificant, and argue the warming trend continues. But if you extend the data to present day, 2014, the trend becomes statistically significant, and shows an end to the warming trend. This year they were forced to release current data, thus confirming a true cooling trend. Not one mention of it though on their site. Well again only to dismiss, but conveniently in presentation leave recent data out of the calculations.
You know they were caught three times changing historical data. Had to change it back. Overall the ice caps are now increasing, it's right there for all to see. Don't read the conclusions, look at the data only. Clear as the day is long.
BTW gardengal none of your imbedded links work, I had to look them up myself.
I tried to show how to embed, but I can't get it not to work!
My bad
Oregon Petition

Kinda ironic really, reminds of that recent song I'm the man, I'm the man, I'm the man yes I am, yes I am,yes I am

And while I am guessing that this has become an entirely pointless discussion at this stage of denial, here are the links, should you decide you might want to increase your knowledge base. Just cut and paste.

NASA #1 long term global warming trend
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1029/

NOAA #1 warming climate indicators http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

NASA #2 collapse of west Antarctic ice sheet
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

NASA #3 Arctic ice cap melting
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

NOAA #2 Arctic ice change graphics
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

17 years is the definition of cherry picking. It's not even wrong, it's just silly.

“The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels" - Deepak Lal, Cato Institute senior fellow and author of “Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty,”

Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers…. It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.- Prof. Larry Bell, author, “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,”

“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something’ when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?... None of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past.* And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”-Prof. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama/Huntsville

* So true in 2007 we are supposed have most of the artic ice cap melted according to the projection models whereas it has increased by 29% from 2012. The ice cap is growing.
None of the models have been correct, and we want to make policy based on these models? That's crazy!

Speaking of climate, next week in the Midwest we plunge into winter temps once again in the fall as we dip into the lower 20's for an extended time. Winter is coming early this year. The 17 year long cold weather trend continues on.
The global cooling deniers have egg on their face once again.

Burn a tire and save a tree!

HM, what you want, in the face of a rapidly changing climate, may not be very useful. Best to plant trees in the middle of their zone range, it is some protection.

Benny

They take some interesting things into account that the USDA zones don't, but there are an awful lot of huge temperature gaps that they ignore.

The national weather data is there and readily accessible.

Just need collation, calculating the averages and then deciding on day lengths for proposed zones. Then plotting them out over a map of the USA. Obviously some areas where there is no data would become guesses as the current zone maps are today.

I have never heard of such a map and am surprised nobody seems to have done it.

A zone 5 continental climate location is going to have a colder, shorter growing season than a zone 7 continental climate location. By definition.

The USDA also has a web soil survey that is a general soil survey. It too has problems because there are "inclusions" that were not mapped out.

The main problem is the winters are just too variable. A weather station close to my house recorded between 450 and over 900 chill hours in a five year span. It is best to try and figure out what you average chill hours are and try to stay within 100 to 200 hrs +/-.

People talk a lot about climate change but the problem is, it was never fixed. It has always fluctuated. The climate has gradually been getting warmer for the last 400 years. However, I doubt we will be able to tell the difference in our life time.

Of course weather is variable and apparently getting warmer, but this has nothing at all to do with the value of having a system that allows quick reference of the nature of the growing season itself in one place compared to other places.

You could say the current zone system is useless because it is based on a singular average low which also fluctuates wildly everywhere season to season (and also seems to be rising). The point of it is for comparison to evaluate the possibility of any given species (or variety) surviving winter at a given site. I just think evaluating the possibility of getting specific crops to maturity is equally important.

The coolest zone warm enough to adequately ripen Goldrush most years could represent a zone. Or figs (even if they need be sheltered for winter), or mangoes or corn and so forth. Not survival of the plant but the ripening of the crop.

Once you broke down the nature of growing seasons throughout the country if would be possible to organize what varieties grow best where on the map of the U.S.

I think the problem is not the lack of zone systems that could be used (we already have hardiness zones, heat units, chill hours, precipitation preferences, Growing Degree days (GDD)), but the lack of data for the particular plants themselves.

For example, does anyone know how many Growing Degree Days it takes to ripen a Red Baron peach? It surely does not include this information in any description of the variety I have seen. How many people actually know how many inches of rain their orchard receives annually?

But everyone seems to know what zone they are in! A list of several numerical ratings for each fruiting plant needs to be compiled, and then the maps need to be generated so that we can memorize these numbers the way we do those all-holy hardiness zones!

Seems to me that the USDA zone system has an Eastern/humid climate bias. It makes sense in that if rainfall is adequate and the other factors are not too severe, then the minimum winter temps are often the limiting climate variable for many plants.

However if you happen to live at high altitude, or in the semi-arid West (or both as I do), then minimum winter temps are only a part of the equation, and often not the most important factor. I have found many plants which "should" do fine in my zone 5a location, but can't survive a single winter. The dry cold winds, strong winter sun, and short growing season are too much for them even if we only get down to -5 or -10F that year.

A zone system which includes adjustments for length of the growing season and other winter conditions (dry winds and strong sun) would be very useful. Perhaps some research is needed to quantify how much these other factors change the "effective" minimum temps. (Or come up with a new metric of which min temps is only one piece)

I wouldn't be surprised if such a new system had much of the East as the current zone system. but for places with additional climate challenges, a new zone system which took them into account would be a great improvement.

At least the 2012 USDA zones finally show some of the finer detail of cold air drainages and effects of elevation that were missing from earlier versions!

The wind is an itch with a b in front! Just ask this house!
The roots lifted it, well ruined it, it was condemned and demolished.

The 2nd house, two refrigerators.

We certainly know winds in the east. At one point I just started swearing at mother nature. Totally helpless to stop this, or even slow it down. Luckily nobody was hurt. That night in Detroit 40 houses burned down. See that bike, the front tire melted, but that tree stood it's ground.

Drew,

Give it up. Don't you know that the science is settled. ;)

And once it has been declared that "the science is settled", the fact that each and every prediction made by the models is wrong is irrelevant. The fact that we have not had a major hurricane on the east coast for more that 2 years despite the dire predictions is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is settled is that there is warming and there has been for 12,000 years and it is continuing. Oh, I forgot Drew, you did say that you agree that there is long term warming. Unfortunately, where you fall short is the fact that (a) you don't agree that it is happening at light speed or (b) that we are the major cause and (c) you also don't believe that we can do something about it NOW and (d) that disrupting our economy to do something that has not been proven to be needed or to work may not be a good idea. That is where and why you open yourself to personal attacks

What is also settled is that when one feels it necessary to be personally condescending in commenting on another's opinion, one reveals one's own tilt towards a closed minded fanaticism evidencing a total assuredness that one has it all figured out and how dare another look at things differently. Don't get me wrong, that may be a heartfelt belief so it is not evil, just hubristic.

That is why you were 1) asked what planet you lived on, 2) told that you really don't know what you are talking about 3) told that obviously you were not reasonably intelligent since "No one with any kind of reasonable intelligence can argue that rising sea levels - a direct result of climate warming and polar ice melt - is a good thing" .

What is not settled is that human activity has any appreciable effect on the overall degree of the warming.

Actually, I don't think that rising sea levels are necessarily a bad thing. I don't agree nor do I worry that Florida, Texas and Louisiana ( and NYC) being underwater is a bad thing. I don't worry that mangoes and avocados can be grown in Europe.

So, Drew... be careful, in what you think and more careful in what you actually say.

Mike