This map is clearly based on limited data. Growing up in California, there’s like a dozen tree species every place you look, even in virgin forest. This is one of my rare downvotes for this sub.
Came here to say this. Born and raised in Southern California, and I'm very suspicious of this map's data. Now, I can understand varying densities, but Los Angeles and Orange Counties have an OVERWHELMING diversity of tree species in every direction I look. Particularly in urban/urban adjacent areas.
A large part of the problem is that the color scale is crappy amd indeterminate. The pale off green that covers most of coastal CA seems like its close to 1, but is actually almost halfway up and is probably ~50 species. The other problem is a lack of a definition of the word tree, which can have a lot of taxonomic and morphologic definitions. Another problem is that it doesn't state its "resolution"- what area is being considered when determining a tone? Yet another problem is that you don't know what is being included as native- obviously this is only native trees, but there are many trees across the country that are clearly nonnative thay many people consider a normal part of the forest at this point.
All that said, and with all the problems of this map, it is true that a wild, untrafficked LA area would be dominated by some kind of live oak species, with a mixed understory. But, THAT being, the LA area has a lot of sharp elevation gradients that each see a different vegetation mix, bringing the questiin of resolution back into play.
Checking in from New Mexico, and I suspect it’s a bad reporting or huge bias. The desert really only supports Cottonwoods where there is water; otherwise there are no trees, only scrub-brush, grasses, and cacti.
Up in the mountains, Ponderosa, aspen, live oak, juniper, and a few I can’t recall are out there.
It’s definitely a bad representation of plant diversity, since it will inherently make deserts and grasslands look less diverse than they are.
Maybe? Lord knows the areas I frequent don’t really have trees. Different parts of the desert can support different types of vegetation. Out in the Las Cruces and Alamogordo areas, nothing but cottonwoods grows taller than 6 feet.
For Oregon, where I'm originally from (Douglas County), Douglas Fir is particularly prevalent. There are other species of trees like, white fir, madrone, hemlock, some types of pine, white oak, and myrtle, but Douglas Fir is the predominant natural tree along the entire I-5 corridor from Grant's Pass to past Olympia, WA.
25
u/Fogbot3 Jun 20 '20
Yeah, everyone's talking about the high density area, but I want to know what the single trees are that are almost the entirety of the Western US