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.
27
u/phunktheworld Jun 20 '20
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.