Seeing the large-scale patterns in how plant species are distributed across the landscape is nuts because it highlights how we manage land according to Concepts, and create technology for managing land according to Concepts, and we have words for certain types of environments and not others
Like, in my area, out of our plants that grow here, there is a certain group of plants that Exists in Forests, and another group that Exists in Lawns, and another group that Exists in Pastures, and depending on certain factors like how far upland it is and the soil pH, you can get a pretty good sense of what you're going to see and you can find environments like that over and over again, with similar combinations of plants.
And then there are plants that are absolute wildcards, that don't consistently exist anywhere because their habitats are only ever created accidentally. Powerline cuts, abandoned stretches of land, roadsides that are intermittently maintained, patches of land with complicated histories of being used for this and that and the other, disturbed and neglected in various ways.
Like in the eastern USA we have concept "forest" and we have concept "field/pasture" and then there is Land Used By People (mowed by heavy machinery) but probably like 1/2 of our plant biodiversity straight up can't live in forests of the density and lack of disturbance that Eastern forests have, but also can't live in the socially acknowledge categories of "useful" land that we have, so you find them in these random ass places that are like, A Ditch Between A Railroad Track And A Poorly Maintained Public Park or Field Where There Used To Be Horses But Now People Ride ATV's There
Forever I am trying to figure out how to tell people that there aren't, like, places that are "Nature" and places that are "Not Nature," there's just, a range of socially constructed ideas about what kinds of Places exist and machines and constructions built to enforce those criteria.
