Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 11.2 Species richness reported at 1-m
2
and 1000-m
2
scales for the MTC and related regions.
Species richness
Sample
1m
2
¯
1000 m
2
¯
Time since
fire (yrs)
Data
source
(range for sites)
(range for sites)
# sites
California chaparral
2
9.5 (2.9-22.1)
58.0 (27-106)
250
1
2
12.2 (4.8-20.6)
53.0 (33-85)
28
2
4
6.6 (3.0-11.4)
35.0 (10-57)
28
2
mature
5.5
28.0 (16-34)
10
3
mature
1.4
8.8
2
4
Arizona chaparral
2 (yearly total)
7.8 (3.1-12.0)
76.5 (27-102)
40
5
2 (spring)
4.0 (2.0-8.1)
46.6 (16-72)
40
5
2 (autumn)
5.3 (2.4-10.9)
55.0 (22-73)
40
5
Mediterranean
Western garrigue
1
8
29
1?
6
Western garrigue
2
6.7 (5.6-7.8)
48.8 (42-56)
2
7
Western garrigue
5
8
28
1?
6
Western garrigue
(closed canopy)
2-4
21-33
4
13
Eastern maquis
(closed canopy)
-
39.0 (21-57)
2
4
Eastern maquis
(open canopy)
-
125.0 (84-179)
4
4
Eastern maquis
(open canopy)
-
154.0 (147-162)
1(5yrs)
8
Eastern
Pinus halepensis
/maquis
Pole-facing slope
2
-
86 (80-92)
2
9
Pole-facing slope
10
-
94 (91-97)
2
9
Pole-facing slope
mature
-
82 (78-86)
2
9
Equator-facing slope
2
-
84 (80-88)
2
9
Equator-facing slope
10
-
124 (123-125)
2
9
Equator-facing slope mature
-
131 (127-135)
2
9
-
a
Chilean matorral
20-25
7.7
3
6
South African fynbos
6
9.5
86.7
3
10
8
11.0
64.7
3
10
8
16.6
80.0
3
10
mature
15.2 (9.8-26.6)
63.8 (41-141)
20
3
mature
16.1 (12.8-24.5)
66.4 (41-93)
9
11
mature
13.7 (3.8-24.1)
68.8 (26-143)
17
12
Western Australia
Heathland
mature
12.9
69.4
30
6
Heathland
mature
13.3
65.0
7
4
Banksia
woodland
mature
15.5 (11-19)
69.3 (59-81)
9
14
Mallee
immature?
7.8
48.9
13
6
Mallee
mature?
6.1
49.0
6
4
1, J.E. Keeley, unpublished; 2, Keeley & Fotheringham (
2005
); 3, Bond (
1983
); 4, Naveh & Whittaker
(
1979
); Keeley & Fotheringham (
2003b
); 5, Fotheringham (
2009
); 6, Westman (
1988
); 7, Pausas
et. al.
(
1999
); 8, Aronson & Shmida (
1992
); 9, Kutiel (
1997
); 10, Schwilk
et al.
(
1997
); 11, Cowling (
1983b
);
12, Cowling (
1990
); 13, Chiarucci
et al.
(
2001
); 14, Bridgewater & Backshall (
1981
).
a
The very high 0.1-ha values reported by Westman (
1988
) are not valid measures as they were based
on adding species lists from smaller plots taken over an area much larger than 0.1 ha (G. Montenegro
personal communication, 3 July 2003).
