reduce the effect ofmarkedly unequal abundances. To increase the likelihood of obtaining an ecologically interpretable result, the modelling was restricted to 88 subplots which could clearly be identified as being characterized by one of the three vegetation types, classified according to their predominant understory species. One of these was labelled the ‘Pomaderris’ stand type, which encompassed subplots from the two plots burnt 72 yr previously, viz. those from ‘1898/1934’ plus subplots from the ‘1898’ plot that were subjected to a second wildfire in 1934. This stand type contained abundant living trees of Pomaderrisapetala (Rhamnaceae) on soils derived from dolerite. The second stand type was labelled ‘Monotoca’, derived exclusively from subplots of the ‘1934’ plot, and which had an acidic soil derived from sandstone, promoting the replacement of P. apetala by Monotoca glauca (Ericaceae). The third stand type, labelled ‘Rainforest’, encompassed subplots fromthe ‘1898’ and ‘Old growth’ plots that predominantly contained the rainforest
species N. cunninghamii and/or A. moschatum, sometimes accompanied by one or more of the species Anopterus
glandulosus (Escalloniaceae), Eucryphia lucida (Eucryphiaceae), Tasmannia lanceolata (Winteraceae) and Phyllocladus aspleniifolius (Podocarpaceae or Phyllocladaceae). If the DISTLM model proved to be significant, the dbRDA routine was used to visualize the results, with plotting symbols chosen that reflect a combination of the plot in which the subplot occurs and one of the three predominant vegetation types described above.