Skip Navigation



AOBPreview published online on April 3, 2008
Annals of Botany, doi:10.1093/aob/mcn049
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/9/1401    most recent
mcn049v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ezcurra, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wardle, P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ezcurra, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wardle, P.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Ezcurra, C.
Right arrow Articles by Wardle, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Floristic Relationships Among Vegetation Types of New Zealand and the Southern Andes: Similarities and Biogeographic Implications

Cecilia Ezcurra1,*, Nora Baccalá2 and Peter Wardle3

1 Departamento de Botánica
2 Departamento de Estadística, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, 8400 San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
3 Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

* For correspondence. E-mail cezcurra{at}crub.uncoma.edu.ar

Received: 20 December 2007    Returned for revision: 25 January 2008    Accepted: 26 February 2008   

Background and Aims: Similarities between the floras of geographically comparable regions of New Zealand (NZ) and the southern Andes (SA) have interested biologists for over 150 years. The present work selects vegetation types that are physiognomically similar between the two regions, compares their floristic composition, assesses the environmental factors that characterize these matching vegetation types, and determines whether phylogenetic groups of ancestral versus modern origin are represented in different proportions in their floras, in the context of their biogeographic history.

Methods: Floristic relationships based on 369 genera of ten vegetation types present in both regions were investigated with correspondence analysis (CA) and ascending hierarchical clustering (AHC). The resulting ordination and classification were related to the environmental characteristics of the different vegetation types. The proportions of different phylogenetic groups between the regions (NZ, SA) were also compared, and between forest and non-forest communities.

Key Results: Floristic similarities between NZ and SA tend to increase from forest to non-forest vegetation, and are highest in coastal vegetation and bog. The floras of NZ and SA also differ in their phylogenetic origin, NZ being characterized by an ‘excess’ of genera of basal origin, especially in forests.

Conclusions: The relatively low similarities between forests of SA and NZ are related to the former being largely of in situ South American and Gondwanan origin, whereas the latter have been mostly reconstituted though transoceanic dispersal of propagules since the Oligocene. The greater similarities among non-forest plant communities of the two regions result from varied dispersal routes, including relatively recent transoceanic dispersal for coastal vegetation, possible dispersal via a still-vegetated Antarctica especially for bog plants, and independent immigration from Northern Hemisphere sources for many genera of alpine vegetation and grassland.

Key words: Biogeographic history, floristic similarities, generic composition, local floras, New Zealand, phylogenetic origin, southern Andes, vegetation types


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.