Biased-corrected richness estimates for the Amazonian tree flora

Amazonian forests are extraordinarily diverse, but the estimated species richness is very much debated. Here, we apply an ensemble of parametric estimators and a novel technique that includes conspecific spatial aggregation to an extended database of forest plots with up-to-date taxonomy. We show that the species abundance distribution of Amazonia is best approximated by a logseries with aggregated individuals, where aggregation increases with rarity. By averaging several methods to estimate total richness, we confirm that over 15,000 tree species are expected to occur in Amazonia. We also show that using ten times the number of plots would result in an increase to just ~50% of those 15,000 estimated species. To get a more complete sample of all tree species, rigorous field campaigns may be needed but the number of trees in Amazonia will remain an estimate for years to come

Gap size measurement: the proposal of a new field method

In the tropical Atlantic Forest, 42 canopy gaps had their areas estimated using four different field methods of measurement: Runkle, Brokaw and Green [Runkle, J.R., 1981. Gap formation in some old-growth forests of the eastern United States. Ecology 62, 1041-1051; Brokaw, N.V.L., 1982. The definition of treefall gap and its effect on measures of forest dynamics. Biotropica 14, 158-160; Green, P.T., 1996. Canopy Gaps in rain forest on Christmas Island, Indian Ocean: size distribution and methods of measurement. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 427-434] and a new method proposed in this work. It was found that within the same gap delimitation, average gap size varied from 56.0 up to 88.3 m(3) while total sum of gap area varied from 2351.3 to 3707.9 m(3) Differences among all methods and between pairs of method proved to be statistically significant. As a consequence, gap size-class distribution was also different between methods. When one method is held as a standard, deviation on average values of gap size ranged between 11.8 and 59.7% as deviations on single gap size can reach 172.8%. Implications on forest dynamics were expressed by the forest turnover rate that was 24% faster or 15% slower depending on the method adopted for gap measurement. Based on my results and on methods' evaluation, the use of a new method is proposed here for future research involving the measure of gap size in forest ecosystems. Finally, it is concluded that forest comparisons disregarding the influence of different methods of gap measurement should be reconsidered. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved