Search

We present data on sexual systems and associated traits in the New Zealand angiosperm flora and discuss reasons for the anomalously high levels of gender dimorphism in the flora, and the low levels of monoecy in woody species. Along with Hawai'i and New Caledonia, New Zealand has exceptionally high levels of gender dimorphism (19.5% of angiosperm species). The plant traits associated with gender dimorphism (woody growth, small, unspecialised white to yellow-green flowers, abiotic pollination, fleshy fruit) are the same as those in other regions and most gender dimorphic species belong to lineages that were already gender dimorphic on arrival in New Zealand. We attribute the high levels of gender dimorphism to several distinct factors. New Zealand’s evergreen forests have many small trees and understorey shrubs with fleshy fruit and small, open, inconspicuous flowers, a combination characterised by high levels of gender dimorphism elsewhere. Many of these species belong to lineages that migrated from the tropical north, a region with high levels of gender dimorphism. In comparison with many other regions, the New Zealand angiosperm flora has few annuals, and few plants with large, specialised flowers or pollinated by birds, traits elsewhere associated with exceedingly low levels of gender dimorphism. Finally, chance may have played a role through the association of gender dimorphism with rapidly radiating lineages. While the New Zealand angiosperm flora has similar levels of monoecy (14.2%) to other comparable regions, monoecy is exceptionally uncommon in the tree flora (3.4% for strictly monoecious species). However, the endemic Nothofagaceae and introduced woody monoecious species thrive in New Zealand. We suggest it is the lack of temperate sources for monoecious tree species, combined with the difficulty large-fruited monoecious tropical species have in crossing ocean gaps that may be ultimate reason for their failure to establish in greater numbers.

Oceanic islands remained free of humans until relatively recent times. On contact, humans encountered pristine environments with unique ecosystems and species highly vulnerable to novel impacts. In the course of rendering an island habitable, the new settlers transformed it through fire, deforestation, hunting and introduction of pests and weeds. The result, as described for many oceanic islands globally, has been a catastrophe for biodiversity. Here we present the case of the Canary Islands, an Atlantic archipelago renowned for its exceptional biodiversity, and show that these islands have been no exception to the general rule. We review the archaeological, palaeoecological, palaeontological and ecological literature for the archipelago and discuss the ecological consequences – in particular habitat transformation and biodiversity loss – of human settlement. In contrast to previous views that prehistoric humans had only limited impacts on these islands, we show that vegetation change, increased fire, soil erosion, species introductions and extinctions follow the familiar oceanic pattern. Timing of human settlement of the Canary Islands has been controversial, with revised archaeological dates suggesting a relatively late arrival at the beginning of the Common Era, while palaeoecological and palaeontological evidence favours a presence several centuries earlier. While the matter is still not settled, we suggest that settlement sometime between 2400 and 2000 cal years BP is a possibility.