Oceanic temperate forest versus warm temperate rainforest: a reply to Grubb et al. (2017)

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Matt S. McGlone, Landcare Res, Landcare Research - New Zealand, New Zealand
  • Robert Buitenwerf
  • Sarah J. Richardson, Landcare Res, Landcare Research - New Zealand, New Zealand
Grubb et al. (2017) point out that we (McGlone et al. 2016) erroneously stated that the definition of warm temperate rain forest (WTRF; Grubb et al. 2013) was based in part on climatic criteria. We apologise: their text made clear that this was not the case. However, they go on to say that they ‘see no virtue in using climatic variables to define a [vegetation] formation type’, and then discuss problems with the climate- based global biome schemes of Holdridge (1947), Whittaker (1970), Box (1981) and Prentice et al. (1992). As our oceanic temperate forest (OTF) concept is underpinned by climatic variables, and as they suggest that it largely falls within their WTRF and cool temperate rain forest (CTRF) concepts, we take this opportunity to further discuss the relative merits of these contrasting ways of classifying vegetation cover.
Original languageEnglish
JournalNew Zealand Journal of Botany
Pages (from-to)378-385
Number of pages8
Publication statusPublished - 2017

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 118120328