Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphere

General discussions of forests and trees that do not focus on a specific species or specific location.

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

#1)  Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphere

Postby KoutaR » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:13 am

This is a continuation of my comparison of the tree species richness in temperate regions (viewtopic.php?f=144&t=6804). From Larry’s message (#7) I got the idea of extending the comparison to the southern temperate world. However, I developed my method for the northern temperate regions and it is not easily applicable to the southern temperate regions. The main reason is that in the south only a few genera are shared with the northern regions and even with other southern regions. If a shrub genus is erroneously included or a tree genus omitted, it immediately distorts the comparison. In the north, the effect of such an error is much smaller because the genera are largely the same. Consequently, if southern regions are included, the comparability is lower than between the northern sub-regions. I return to the generic similarities between the regions below. Here I describe my methods and definitions only if they differ from those I described in my northern comparison (see the link above).


Delimiting the study regions

I had difficulties here, too. Eastern South America is treeless around the 13.5°C point, in Africa and western Australia no coastal place is so cool and New Zealand is slightly too small and the island effect lowers the species richness. Thus, only two sub-regions were possible to delimit.


Western South America: Central Chile

In my source for the climate data, there is no point close to 13.5°C along the coast, the closest being La Serena (14.5°C) and Concepción (12.4°C). I decided to choose the halfway point between them at the coast as my starting point. This point is located west from the capital Santiago. Then I encountered problems. Entire Chile is too large and extends too far north and south. One possibility would be to continue to Argentina and even to Uruguay and select regions of all 2-3 countries. However, the climate east of the Andes is much warmer and drier, and much of the area is not forested. On the east coast, the 13.5°C point is far south of the western point. Thus, I decided to include the Chilean regions closest to the starting point until the area requirement was met. The following regions were included: Atacama, Coquimbo, Valparaíso, Metropolitana de Santiago, O'Higgins, Maule, Bío Bío, La Araucanía, Los Ríos and Los Lagos. The area of the sub-region is 313,776 km2.

               
                       
SouthAmerica_map.jpg
                       
Location of the sub-region (in red).
               
               

The climate and vegetation parallel those of California extending from desert through mediterranean type to temperate rainforest and high mountains. The climate is very oceanic. In the southern parts of the sub-region precipitation is abundant throughout the year and the vegetation dominated by evergreen angiosperms.

I mostly used http://www.chileflora.com for the genus information and species distribution data. Wikipedia helped to decide whether a given genus is a tree genus.


Southeastern Australia

The sub-region delimitation was problematic again. The southernmost point of Victoria, Tidal River, is still slightly too warm (14°C). Going south, Flinders Island between Victoria and Tasmania has 13.4°C, and Devonport in northern Tasmania 12.7°C. I decided to make an exception to my rule not to accept islands as major parts of sub-regions and to form the sub-region from Victoria and Tasmania. Reasons:  The greater part of the sub-region still lies on the mainland, Tasmania has been connected to the mainland through most of the Quaternary, and almost two thirds of the Tasmanian tree species are shared with Victoria. The area of the sub-region is 306,030 km2.

               
                       
Australia_map.jpg
                       
Location of the sub-region (in red).
                       
Australia_map.jpg (36.62 KiB) Viewed 810 times
               
               

Rainfall is relatively evenly distributed but winter rainfall predominates. Northern Victoria is quite dry but moisture increases to the south. In Tasmania, westerly winds, “the Roaring Forties”, predominate bringing high rainfall to the western part. Western Tasmania has the smallest temperature amplitude of all our sub-regions. The highest peak, Mount Kosciuszko in Victoria, is 2228 m. In Australia, eucalypts (genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora) have evolved to occupy the niche of northern fire-dependent conifers like pines and Douglas-firs, and they have succeeded superbly: even in western Tasmania there are few areas completely devoid of eucalypts. Almost the whole tree flora is evergreen.

               
                       
TarraE_regnans3.jpg
                       
Eucalyptus regnans stand in Tarra-Bulga National Park, about 70 km from Tidal River at 620 m. Also Nothofagus cunninghamii (extreme right) and three species of tree ferns: Dicksonia antarctica (in gully, bottom left), Cyathea cunninghamii (with tall trunks, centre) and Cyathea australis (with tall trunks visible between Nothofagus branches).
               
               

I took the genera from “Native Trees and Shrubs of South-Eastern Australia” by Costermans and “Native Trees of Tasmania” by Kirkpatrick & Backhouse. Wikipedia, NSW Flora Online (http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au) and “Eucalypts of Victoria and Tasmania” by Nicolle helped in deciding whether a given genus is a tree genus. For species distribution I used A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria (http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/viclist) and the Tasmanian vascular plant census (http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_ ... blications). I still had a major problem. The tree flora of the sub-region is dominated by only two genera: Eucalyptus and Acacia. The problem was the latter: there are 111 Acacia species in the sub-region, about half of them being trees. Should I include the genus? The decision would have a disproportionate influence on the results. Therefore I decided to change my method in the case of these two genera and include only the tree acacias and eucalypts (only two eucalypt species do not meet my tree definition). I did not find any description for 14 Acacia species, so I included the same proportion of them (6 species) as was the proportion of trees for the other Acacia species (45 out of 97). There are four tree ferns in the sub-region but according to my research most Cyathea species are not tree-sized; I then decided to omit the other genus, Dicksonia, too, because only one fern species would give misleading information in my opinion.


Results

Species numbers by genera in 2 sub-regions are listed in the Excel file below.

               
                       
diversity_comparison_south.xls
                                               
(24.5 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
               
               

For the comparison of the southern and northern sub-regions, one further adjustment was needed: I had previously omitted Sorbus, Crataegus and Malus because they contain a lot of apomictic microspecies. I know that there are 5 non-apomictic Sorbus, 3 Crataegus and 1 Malus in France. In the summary below, I have added 9 angiosperms for France and for the other northern sub-regions a number of angiosperms so that the proportions of angiosperm numbers between the northern sub-regions remain the same.

               
                       
species_numbers-all.jpg
                                       
               

Interestingly, Central Chile and southeastern Australia have similar species richness except that the latter has additionally an enormous diversity of Eucalyptus and Acacia. No genus in any other sub-region has as many species as either of these two genera in the Australian sub-region.

Finally, let’s compare similarities in the floristic compositions of the sub-regions. In the table below I have tabulated all the sub-region pairs. The figures show the percentage of the species for which there are con-generic species in the pair sub-region. I have grouped the similarities to three levels: very strong similarities (88–96%, dark orange), strong similarities (47–73%, light orange) and no or weak similarities (0–9%, white).

               
                       
Similarities.jpg
                                       
               

It is easy to see that the sub-regions fall into three groups: 1. Northern Hemisphere, 2. Central Chile, and 3. Southeast Australia. The Northern Hemisphere breaks down further into four sub-groups: 1.a Western Eurasia, 1.b East China, 1.c Eastern US, and 1.d California. It is not difficult to find the reasons for this grouping. All the northern sub-regions are in the same group as they were still connected 5 millions years ago, but Australia began to separate from the South America – Antarctica block as early as about 80 millions years ago. The tropical zone effectively isolates the northern and southern temperate regions. France, the Balkans and the Caucasus are in the same sub-group as they are located close to each others in the same geographical area.

I look forward to comments, corrections and ideas.
Last edited by KoutaR on Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

For this message the author KoutaR has received Likes - 5:
bbeduhn, Devin, Larry Tucei, Matt Markworth, Will Blozan
User avatar
KoutaR
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Germany
Has Liked: 76 times
Has Been Liked: 222 times
Print view this post

#2)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby Don » Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:52 pm

Kouta-
Challenging undertaking!
Quick comment, in my youthful wandering through South Island, New Zealand, I was taken aback by the similarity of topography, vegetation to that of California, even though a world apart...I'm curious how such a pairing 'graphs' out.
-Don
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org
User avatar
Don
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:42 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Has Liked: 64 times
Has Been Liked: 217 times
Print view this post

#3)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby fooman » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:49 am

Hi Don,

A quick perusal of Dawson & Lucas' "Native Trees of New Zealand", using a criterion of tree >= 5 m, there are approximately 210 tree species in NZ (I lost count a bit towards the end) and the outlying islands (including subtropical Kermadacs to Sub- Antarctic Auckland Islands).  This includes 18 conifer species (2 more are shrubs), 6 tree ferns, and the rest angiosperms (including one palm, a number of palm-like cordyline and dracophyllum species) as well as more normal looking trees. Large genera include 25 Coprosma tree species (plus another 30 shrubs), 23 Olearia trees (plus 9 shrubs), 15 Pittosporum (plus 6 shrubs) and 12 Pseudopanax.

The book had more species than above, but they were described as "shrub to small tree" less than 5 m.  Their criteria for a tree was a woody species more than 4 m in height, with a single trunk or substantial woody limbs. The book doesn't have a numerical breakdown, but the vast majority of species are 5-15 m tall. There are approx 35 tree species considered emergent or canopy trees (20+ m). The rest are sub-canopy.

I do remember reading a paper about NZ tree species height evolution. Most species evolved from shrub-like plants, and there was little competition for light.  The emergent species didnt block a lot of light so height was not required as a trait.

The book states in total that NZ has ~2300 species of angiosperms, conifers and ferns in 268 000 sq km (~100,000 sq miles), 80% of which are endemic.

Cheers,
Matt

For this message the author fooman has received Likes :
Will Blozan
User avatar
fooman
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Wellington
Has Liked: 3 times
Has Been Liked: 76 times
Print view this post

#4)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby KoutaR » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:48 am

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
                                               
(2.31 KiB) Downloaded 28 times
               
               

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.
User avatar
KoutaR
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Germany
Has Liked: 76 times
Has Been Liked: 222 times
Print view this post

#5)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby Larry Tucei » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:34 pm

Kouta-   Wow excellent posting! What a lot of work thanks for all the answers on the Southern Hemisphere verses the Northern. You are very good my friend, and fast. I don't think I could have done that, again thanks for answering my question. Wow I hope you don't ask me any questions.  LOL   Larry
User avatar
Larry Tucei
 
Posts: 1751
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Southern Mississippi
Has Liked: 632 times
Has Been Liked: 564 times
Print view this post

#6)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby KoutaR » Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:52 pm

Thanks Larry! This like list making has been my passion from my childhood. My mom has a scientific term for it, I have forgotten it.

Actually I do have a question for you. You have written a lot about the southeastern US. I guess southern Florida is some of the dendrologically richest placest in the US. But cove forests in the southern Appalachia are rich, too. Which one has more tree species in a small area, say in an acre, an exceptionally rich subtropical broadleaf forest in southern Florida or an exceptionally rich cove in the southern Appalachia?
User avatar
KoutaR
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Germany
Has Liked: 76 times
Has Been Liked: 222 times
Print view this post

#7)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby fooman » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:59 pm

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
User avatar
fooman
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Wellington
Has Liked: 3 times
Has Been Liked: 76 times
Print view this post

#8)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby KoutaR » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:30 pm

Hi Matt,

That was an interesting paper - thank you! The hypothese, why there are so many small tree species in NZ, is interesting.

So the tree species richness seems to be remarkably higher than in Chile at comparable latitudes, too.

About the NZ - SE Australia comparison: The authors of the paper find 215 tree species in NZ, almost the same as you found (210). They find 232 in Victoria and 141 in Tasmania. If about half of the Tasmanian species are shared with Victoria we end up in approx. 300 species, slightly more than the number of species in the "tree genera" in my comparison (277).

My conclusion of the southern temperate regions would be this like:
- Chile: Low tree species richness
- NZ: High tree species richness
- SE Australia: Very high tree species richness but a remarkable part of that concentrated in two genera

And all of these seem to be well below the Chinese richness.

Kouta
User avatar
KoutaR
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Germany
Has Liked: 76 times
Has Been Liked: 222 times
Print view this post

#9)  Re: Extending tree diversity comparison to Southern Hemisphe

Postby KoutaR » Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm

Of course, if we only compare NZ and SE Australia we should not combine Victoria+Tasmania as Victoria and NZ has almost the same area. Now Victoria has only slightly more tree species than NZ !
User avatar
KoutaR
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:41 am
Location: Germany
Has Liked: 76 times
Has Been Liked: 222 times
Print view this post


Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests