Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:59 pm
by fooman
KoutaR wrote:Matt,

Thank you very much for counting the NZ trees! Now we can directly compare NZ and Chile. I counted at least 5 m tall non-climbing woody plants in my Central Chile sub-region on the Chileflora site. There are 82 species including 8 conifers. Here is the list:
Chile_species.rtf

In this case these two methods result in almost identical species number (83 species in my original method). As I stated in my northern hemisphere part, counting directly the tree species (or species at least 5 m tall) has a potential error source: is 5 m the maximum height or the height the plant usually reaches or something between? Do the botanists in two regions have similar definitions? Particularly if there are a lot of low trees, the error may be substantial.

I don't have energy anymore to count the southeastern Australian species. I don't know any online source and I would need use two books and make sure a given species is not counted twice.

Anyway, we can say with certainty, the order in the Southern Hemisphere is SE Australia > NZ > Central Chile. It was surprise to me that NZ has so much species. I guess the reason for the difference between it and Chile is that the mesic subtropical climate of northern North Island is absent from Chile. Northern Chile is desert.


Hi Kouta,

Have a look at the following paper, some data may be of interest to you.

http://newzealandecology.org/nzje/2915.pdf

Cheers,
Matt