>>2673975Again, you are delusional, and probably have learning disabilities. You can't comprehend anything anyone tries to tell you and all you do is seethe and grasp at everything little thing and regurgitate the same falsities.
Area dominant species, are species that make up the majority of the species in a given area. Routinely 5-10 species make up literally 80-90% of any meaningful sized area. For example let's say you survey 1,000 sq miles with high accuracy (almost no one or agency actually does this in the field within 12 months time), it would ultimately look something like this, 190 total tree species, 9 species make up 85% of the forested area surveyed (ie 85 out of 100 trees are of 9 species). Muh "bottomlands" BS cope doesn't apply because in a large enough survey the end result is always the former example I mentioned. If you surveyed only riparian areas of CA and AZ you would end up with like this; 25 sq miles surveyed, 98 tree species, 10 species make up 75% of the total forested area. Also I can almost guarantee that you are some dumbass chest thumping dunning-kruger zoomer now. And your biggest delusion of all concerns geography, at large. Pic related, Arizona in November or Germany? You have also demonstrated massive delusions regarding total species lists as well before. Those pics I posted the other day were posted as I was debating you from c8k ft ASL, because I actually go out, all the time.
