From aceska at telus.net Thu May 15 08:11:01 2008 From: aceska at telus.net (Adolf Ceska) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 00:11:01 -0700 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 393 Message-ID: <003d01c8b65a$d56d96a0$8048c3e0$@net> BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X BB B EE NNN N BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS =20 No. 393 May 15, 2008 =20 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- BEN WOO (1923-2008) - PACIFIC NORTHWEST AMATEUR MYCOLOGIST From: March _Spore Prints_ #440 It is with profound sadness that we report the passing of the Puget = Sound Mycological Society (PSMS) founding father Ben Woo, who died Friday, February 8, of heart failure. He had been ailing since last November, = when he suffered a heart attack and then a stroke while in France for a = regional foray with the North American Mycological Association (NAMA).=20 A charter member, Ben-along with UW Professor of Botany Daniel E. Stuntz = and Pacific Science Center Director Dixie Lee Ray-was instrumental in the founding of PSMS in 1964. Never one to rest on his laurels, he continued = to play an active role in PSMS until his death. He was the first president = of the Society, the first chair of the annual exhibit, and the first editor = of the club's newsletter, originally called the _PSMS Bulletin_. An = architect who formerly headed his own firm, he prepared the plans for laying out = the annual exhibit as well as serving as chair of the exhibit signage = committee. He hosted field trips, taught mushroom classes, and, along with Joy = Spurr, conducted a workshop of close-up photography. In 1980 when PSMS hosted = the annual meeting of NAMA for the first time, he co-chaired the event.=20 His mushroom proficiency was not limited to PSMS. He was an active = member of the Pacific Northwest Key Council, where he served a term as president = and wrote the key to the genus _Russula_. He was also active in NAMA and for many years served as the board representative for its northwest region. = In 2002 he received the prestigious NAMA award for "Contributions to = Amateur Mycology."=20 In addition to his mushroom expertise, Ben was equally respected and esteemed outside the mushroom community. Widely known for his = involvement in Seattle's International District, he was a founder of the Kin On nursing home, a founder of the Chinese Community Service Organization, president = of the Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects, and head of = the Chinatown-International District Preservation and Development Authority. = He worked with the Lighthouse for the Blind, AIDS Housing of Washington, = the Seattle Human Rights Commission, and the Mount Baker Housing = Association. He was an original member of the Washington State Commission on Asian = American Affairs. When he retired in 1995, he was the director of the King County Department of Construction and Facilities Management. His dry wit, his wisdom, his keen intelligence that cut to the heart of = any problem, his gentle, soft-spoken nature-he will be sorely missed.=20 There were no services. His ashes will be spread over his favorite = mushroom spot.=20 THE MUSHROOM GENUS CLEISTOCYBE=20 From: Ammirati, J.F. (University of Washington, Seattle), A.D. = Parker (Metaline Falls, Washington), & P.B. Matheny=20 (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) The Pacific Northwest has a climate and topography that has nurtured the development of diverse forest and other ecosystems. The various = habitats that have developed in this region over time are a result of a sorting = of plants into vegetation patterns in concert with animals, fungi and other organisms and in relation to edaphic and other abiotic factors. Early botanists and mycologists exploring this region realized the potential = for a rich mycota of macro-fungi, particularly mushrooms, and over the years a steady stream of collectors from institutions in Europe, across North America and from this region have collected data on the diversity of = these fungi. In the early 1900's C.H. Kauffman, W.A. Murrill, G.F. Atkinson, = and other mycologists visited this region. As good fortune would have it, Alexander H. Smith, University of Michigan, visited here in the early 1930's. He began an intense endeavor to complete a study of western = fleshy fungi, something G.F. Atkinson had planned but could not complete due to = his untimely death in Tacoma, Washington in 1918. =20 Daniel E. Stuntz came in contact with Alex Smith in the late=20 1930's when the former was working at Yale University on the genus = _Inocybe_ in Washington State. Later Stuntz took a position at the University of Washington and he and Alex Smith maintained a correspondence and collaborations on fleshy fungi. In 1941 Alex collected extensively in Olympic National Park and from that trip described _Clitocybe gomphidioides_. In 1948 Alex Smith, Dan Stuntz, Emery Simmons and Henry Imshaug collected in Mount Rainier National Park, during that season, = which was rather moist and cool, they collected material of a veiled = _Clitocybe_ that later was named C. subvelosa Smith & Stuntz. In the 1950's and = 1960's additional collections of _Clitocybe subvelosa_ were made in Colorado = and Idaho by Alex Smith. All of these collections were made in the summer = and fall seasons. =20 In April and May 2000, A. D. Parker collected a veiled _Clitocybe_ near Metaline Falls, Washington, that tentatively was called "_spring C. subvelosa_". Brandon Matheny then sequenced DNAs from this mushroom to determine its phylogenetic relationship to other clitocyboid agarics (mushrooms with decurrent gills and a convex to funnel-shaped cap). In = a multigene analysis seven groups of clitocyboid mushrooms were discovered including one representing the "_spring C. subvelosa_". The analysis = showed that this species was not closely related to core species of = _Clitocybe_, but rather formed a closer relationship with the genus _Catathelasma_. Given its unique phylogenetic position the new genus _Cleistocybe_ was described based on this species (Ammirati et al. 2007). =20 _Cleistocybe_ is distinguished from other clitocyboid genera by a combination of morphological characters, including gills that become = gray in age, an interwoven gill trama with divergent elements when young, a = strongly interwoven cap cuticle with pigmented and encrusted hyphae, a white = spores deposit, a distinct or ephemeral fibrillose to submembranous partial = veil, and smooth, inamyloid basidiospores that are inequilateral in profile = view. The next step was to evaluate collections of _Clitocybe gomphidioides_ = and _C. subvelosa_ made by Alex Smith and Dan Stuntz and determine if they = had the same major features as the "spring _C. subvelosa_" and therefore = members of the genus _Cleistocybe_. The results of this study showed that they = did fit the genus very well except for the apparent lack of a veil in = _Clitocybe gomphidioides_. H. E. Bigelow in his study of these two species = confronted the same question and concluded that "the two are very close in all characteristics, differing principally by the presence of a partial veil = in C. subvelosa" (Bigelow 1985). This idea was also considered by Smith = and Stuntz in their comparison of the species in 1950. Our evaluation of = the lower stipe surface of _C. gomphidioides_ material revealed a covering = of narrow, interwoven hyphae very similar to those of the veil of _C. subvelosa_. ITS sequences of three collections of _C. subvelosa_ and = four collections of _C. gomphidioides_ were essentially identical leading to = the conclusion that the partial veil material was not apparent when _C. gomphidioides_ was described by Alex Smith. Therefore, Clitocybe = subvelosa was determined to be conspecific with _C. gomphidioides_ and the latter = was transferred to the genus _Cleistocybe_.=20 Finally, we had to determine whether or not the "spring _C. subvelosa_" = from Metaline Falls was the same as _Cleistocybe gomphidioides_. First of = all the "spring _C. subvelosa_" is known from only a single locality and = likely is rare, in comparison to _C. gomphidioides_ a summer and fall species, = more widespread but rarely collected. In addition, the cap cuticle in the "spring _C. subvelosa_" is not gelatinous as it is in=20 _C. gomphidioides_, and the basidiospores of the former are somewhat = smaller and more elliptical, although the basidiospore features will require = further study of additional populations to be sure they are meaningful. The cap surface of fresh specimens of "spring _C. subvelosa_" turns green with = the application of KOH, however, this has not been tested for _C. gomphidioides_. ITS sequences of the "spring _C. subvelosa_" and _C. gomphidioides_ differ at 76 nucleotide positions (excluding gaps) among = 605 non-gapped sites (648 total aligned sites). The genetic or "p" distance between the two species at the ITS locus is 12.5 %. Thus the vernal occurrence, nongelatinous cap cuticle, and ITS data serve to distinguish "spring _C. subvelosa_" from _C. gomphidioides_. Thus it was described = as a new species, _Cleistocybe vernalis_ Amm., Parker & Matheny (see also = Parker 2007). Over the past century a number of mycologists have made significant contributions towards a better understanding our mycota. None-the-less there is still much work to be done, new discoveries to be made, and = many relationships to explore. The use of molecular phylogenies has opened a = new era in fungus systematics, one that allows us to explore more closely = and better define relationships and biogeographical patterns of fungus = species. The above findings represent one small step toward our goal of knowing = the fungi of our region. References Ammirati, J.F., A.D. Parker, & P. B. Matheny. 2007.=20 _Cleistocybe_, a new genus of Agaricales. _Mycoscience_ 48: = 282-289.=20 Bigelow, Howard E. 1985. North American species of _Clitocybe_ -=20 Part II. Nova Hedwigia Beihefte 81: 1-281. Parker, A.D. 2007. _Cleistocybe vernalis_: A new genus & species=20 of Agaricales. (Poster) http://www.svims.ca/council/cleistocybe.pdf =20 AQUATIC GILLED MUSHROOMS IN THE ROGUE RIVER, SOUTHERN OREGON From: Darlene Southworth (Southern Oregon University,=20 Ashland, OR) email: southworth@sou.edu =20 In 2005 Robert Coffan a consulting hydrologist and adjunct professor at Southern Oregon University, Ashland, discovered a species of = _Psathyrella_ (Basidiomycota) with true gills fruiting underwater in the clear, cold, flowing waters of the upper Rogue River in Oregon. He brought the = fruiting bodies to Jonathan Frank and Darlene Southworth, Department of Biology, Southern Oregon University. They went with him in 2007 and observed = fruiting bodies in the main channel, constantly submerged, near aquatic = vegetation. We observed them fruiting over 11 weeks. These appear to be truly = underwater mushrooms and not mushrooms fruiting on wood recently washed into the = river. Substrates include water-logged wood, gravel, and the silty river bed. = DNA sequence data of the ITS region and a portion of the 28S ribosomal DNA = gene place this fungus in _Psathyrella_ sensu stricto near=20 _P. brooksii_ and _P. gracilis_.=20 Based on molecular and morphological evidence, we conclude that the underwater mushrooms are a new species and have a manuscript under = revision with _Mycologia_ to describe it. Submersion under water constrains spore dispersal. Spores were observed as wedge-shaped rafts released into a = gas pocket under the cap. Underwater formation of normal gills and ballistospores indicate a recent adaptation to the stream environment. = This particular river habitat combines the characteristics of spring-fed = flows, clear, cold, aerated water with woody debris in shallow depths on a fine volcanic substrate. The presence of nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria near fruiting body attachment sites suggests a source of nitrogen in an = otherwise clear stream. This observation adds to the biodiversity of stream fungi = that degrade woody substrates.=20 If you see any in streams, email southworth@sou.edu DISTRIBUTION OF A MUSHROOM _TUBARIA PUNICEA_ ON SOUTHERN VANCOUVER = ISLAND Oluna Ceska & Adolf Ceska [aceska@telus.net] In December 2001, we found a peculiar, deep red mushroom on an arbutus Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) stump and identified it as _Naucoria vinicolor_. For several years we searched for this mushroom without = finding it. In December 2005, we found this fungus again on a site where there were three Arbutus/Pacific Madrone trees that had it growing on their base. = We learned that P. Brandon Matheny and his colleagues were working on this group of mushrooms and we made a more extensive search for this fungus. With the help of the Department of National Defence (DND), we focused = our search on the military areas where we knew, from our previous field = work, their were many old _Arbutus menziesii_ trees suitable for hosting this fungus. Having some vague ideas about the phenology of this fungus, we timed our search for late December and early January. In winter 2005/2006 we found eight sites with the red mushroom, five of which were on DND property. We collected enough material from a = relatively large area (Cobble Hill to Rocky Point) to enable our colleagues to = study its morphology. One of us (Oluna Ceska) was invited to be a co-author of = a paper that would clarify the taxonomy of this group of mushrooms.=20 The authors of the paper (Matheny et. al. 2007) concluded that the = fungus we found should be called _Tubaria punicea_ (A.H. Sm. & Hesler) Ammirati, Matheny, et P.-A. Moreau, and that this taxon is different from = _Naucoria vinicolor_ (our original identification). Our material collected from southern Vancouver Island was crucial to this taxonomical decision, = since Brandon Matheny and his collaborators had no fresh material for DNA analyses. Our surveys continued in the following winter of 2006/2007. Several volunteers took part in the surveys exploring new areas, and they found eight new sites and extended the known distribution of this fungus from Rocky Point in Metchosin to Little Mountain near Parksville. All these searches were either on private properties, parks, or Crown land. We now know this fungus from more non-DND sites than those on DND properties. = The results of those surveys are in Table 1. The phenological observations were done with the help of a number of volunteers who visited the _Tubaria punicea_ sites in Metchosin, Mill = Hill Regional Park, and Observatory Hill. The earliest_Tubaria punicea_ fruiting was on October 24, 2006 (Mill Hill), and fruiting continued = until January 6, 2007 (Metchosin). There was a second flush of this fungus at = the end of March (March 25, 2007 in Langford and March 28, 2007 on = Observatory Hill). This second fruiting was suspected to be triggered by the abnormally high precipitations in March 2007. The investigation of Arbutus trees on southern Vancouver Island yielded = 13 sites with _Tubaria punicea_, five of which were on DND properties. A = total of 40 Arbutus/Pacific Madrone trees were observed to have _T. punicea_ = and GPS coordinates were recorded=20 (Table 1). In spite of the fact that we added quite a few sites, _Tubaria punicea_ = is still rare. The Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada (COSEWIC) that oversees the listing of rare organisms still has not = listed a single fungus as rare in Canada. _Tubaria punicea_ would be an ideal = species for such a listing; however, 'official' rare status for this species is unlikely unless COSEWIC changes the criteria for the listing that apply = for animals and vascular plants, mosses and lichens, as they are not = suitable for fungi. Reference Matheny, P. Brandon, Else C. Vellinga, Neale L. Bougher, Oluna=20 Ceska, Pierre-Arthur Moreau, Maria Alice Neves, Joseph F.=20 Ammirati. 2007. Taxonomy of displaced species of _Tubaria_.=20 _Mycologia_ 99(4): 569-585. =20 Table 1: GPS coordinates of _Arbutus menziesii_ trees with = _Tubaria punicea_ (NAD83)=20 Albert Head - DND property 48=B0 23.3406' N. 123=B0 28.7346' W. Cobble Hill 48=B0 40.8702' N. 123=B0 37.8426' W. 48=B0 40.8762' N. 123=B0 37.7946' W. 48=B0 40.8996' N. 123=B0 37.7616' W. 48=B0 40.8828' N. 123=B0 37.7598' W. 48=B0 40.8930' N. 123=B0 37.7874' W. 48=B0 40.8654' N. 123=B0 37.8174' W. 48=B0 40.8738' N. 123=B0 37.7520' W. 48=B0 40.8786' N. 123=B0 37.6686' W. Heals Rifle Range - DND property 48=B0 32.9436' N. 123=B0 28.1106' W. 48=B0 32.9580' N. 123=B0 28.1400' W. 48=B0 32.9592' N. 123=B0 28.1358' W. 48=B0 32.9760' N. 123=B0 28.1358' W. 48=B0 32.9382' N. 123=B0 28.1088' W. Langford, 1312 Glenshire Drive 48=B0 25.8246' N. 123=B0 32.5980' W. 48=B0 25.8384' N. 123=B0 32.5788' W. Little Mtn., Errington, near Parksville 49=B0 17.6442' N. 124=B0 19.3212' W. Mary Hill - DND property 48=B0 20.9310' N. 123=B0 32.6502' W. 48=B0 20.8938' N. 123=B0 32.7714' W. Metchosin, N of 5041 Williams Head Road 48=B0 21.5250' N. 123=B0 32.6706' W. 48=B0 21.5370' N. 123=B0 32.6538' W. 48=B0 21.5316' N. 123=B0 32.6280' W. Metchosin, between the Williams Head Road=20 & Gallopping Goose Trail 48=B0 21.4164' N. 123=B0 32.9772' W. 48=B0 21.2052' N. 123=B0 33.0426' W. 48=B0 21.1998' N. 123=B0 33.1140' W. 48=B0 21.2232' N. 123=B0 33.0942' W. Mill Hill Regional Park 48=B0 27.3460' N. 123=B0 28.7770' W. Miniskirt Mtn. 48=B0 27.7944' N. 123=B0 31.2114' W. (3 trees) Observatory Hill, Saanich - federal property 48=B0 31.5162' N. 123=B0 25.3392' W. 48=B0 31.4820' N. 123=B0 25.3512' W. 48=B0 31.2900' N. 123=B0 25.2384' W. 48=B0 31.2906' N. 123=B0 25.2438' W. 48=B0 31.2792' N. 123=B0 25.2414' W. 48=B0 31.2810' N. 123=B0 25.2444' W. 48=B0 31.2312' N. 123=B0 25.2192' W. Rocky Point, DND property 48=BA 19.7916' N. 123=BA 33.3558' W. 48=BA 19.8018' N. 123=BA 33.2826' W. Yew Point, DND property 48=BA 26.2920' N. 123=BA 27.0618' W. 48=BA 26.3226' N. 123=BA 27.0738' W. 48=BA 26.3208' N. 123=BA 27.0936' W. From aceska at telus.net Thu May 22 17:20:38 2008 From: aceska at telus.net (Adolf Ceska) Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:20:38 -0700 Subject: [BEN-L]BEN # 394 Message-ID: <000b01c8bc27$c5fabef0$51f03cd0$@net> BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X BB B EE NNN N BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS =20 No. 394 May 22, 2008 =20 aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2 ----------------------------------------------------------- WORKSHOP: ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF ECOLOGICAL DATA Special Three-day Workshop October 3-5, 2008 ALASKA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508 Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data Using JUICE Software: How = to Use the JUICE Package in Combination with Turboveg, Twinspan, PC-ORD, = MULVA, SYN-TAX, D-MAP, CANOCO and Others to Extend the Possibilities of these Programs=20 The workshop will be conducted by Drs. Lubomir Tichy & Milan Chytry Institute of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech = Republic=20 Description: This three-day course will combine lectures with hands-on application to teach the basic concepts and advanced features of the = JUICE 6.5 freeware, computing package based on the Microsoft WINDOWS platform. = The workshop will include:=20 1. Vegetation Databanking - Basic Overview 2. JUICE Installation, Management of Species Lists 3. Data Import (Input from TURBOVEG and other Data Formats, Species Lists) 4. Quality of Phytosociological Data (Plot Size, Preferential Site Selection) 5. Manual Editing of Vegetation Tables 6. Basic Classifications 7. Concept of Diagnostic Species and the Theory of Phytosociological Fidelity 8. Synoptic Tables and Automatic Editing of Vegetation Tables 9. Stratified Data Selection from Phytosociological Databases 10. Calculating Species Indicator Values 11. Export Options 12. Measuring Beta Diversity 13. Modified TWINSPAN Classification 14. Comparison of Classifications: OPTIMCLASS Method 15. Formal Reproduction of Traditional Syntaxa: COCKTAIL Method 16. Matching Relev=E9s to Synoptic Tables 17. Expert System for Automatic Identification of Vegetation Units 18. Supervised Classification Methods: Neural Networks, Classification Trees 19. Ordinations 20. Fitting Species Response Curves 21. Linking Phytosociological Data with Species Trait Databases 22. Defining Species Pools: Beals Smoothing The workshop will be held at Alaska Pacific University and be limited to = 20 participants. Cost of workshop: $325 (a special price is available for fulltime students). Checks, Visa, or purchase order should be made = payable to "Alaska Pacific University" and sent to: JUICE Workshop, = Environmental Science, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, = Alaska 99508; telephone contact for payment is Jeannine Fitzgeralds, = Environmental Science Office @ (907) 564-8207; FAX (907) 562- 4276; email: jfitzgeralds@alaskapacific.edu . Classes from 9:00 -12:00 and 1:00 - = 4:00 pm. Participants should bring their own laptop computers. Further = information concerning the JUICE package may be found on the Web homepage=20 ( http://www.sci.muni.cz/botany/juice.htm ); a JUICE Manual will be available for distribution two weeks prior to the workshop.=20 Questions concerning the workshop should be addressed to: Stephen = Talbot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK = 99503; phone (907) 786-3381, fax (907) 786- 3905, email: stephen_talbot@fws.gov = CONTROLLING SCOTCH BROOM (CYTISUS SCOPARIUS) AND GORSE (ULEX = EUROPAEUS) From: Raj Prasad (2003) Management and control of gorse and=20 Scotch broom in British Columbia. Technology Transfer Note Number 30, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia. rprasad@pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca=20 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The following control strategies for broom and gorse are recommended = based on information and experience gained from the literature, operational = trials and research. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROLLING SCOTCH BROOM A. Cutting: If the adult plants have stem larger than 2 cm in diameter they should be cut off low to the ground. If the plants are cut when the carbohydrate food reserves are lowest in the root (after flowering) or = at the start of the drought season, the incidence of resprouting should be = low. Any sprouts that occur may not survive the drought period in the summer. =09 If the stems are less than 2 cm in diameter they should be pulled out, either by hand or with a broom puller, and not cut. Seedlings and smaller plants have a greater tendency to sprout after cutting than = adult plants. =09 The initial treatment, including chipping, may cost about $ 1000/ha; the first follow-up treatment will cost about $ 300/ha; the cost of subsequent follow-up treatments will continue to decline. B. Cut the plant and treat the stump: =09 Cutting the adult plants and treating the stumps with a herbicide (Release) immediately after cutting appears to be an effective way of killing broom. =09 A follow-up treatment should be carried out to control emerging seedlings before they reach 50 cm in height. Since broom seedlings grow = much faster , this follow-up treatment may be needed before the second year = after the initial treatment, and repeated every few years until the broom = plants are totally eradicated from the site. The seedlings should be pulled out = by hand and not cut, as cutting promote sprouting. =20 The cut plant material should be disposed of by burning, chipping or = removed from the site, to avoid creating a fire hazard. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROLLING GORSE A. Remove the entire adult plant: =09 Since gorse is capable of resprouting from cut stems, ideally the = entire adult plant should be removed, roots and all.=20 =20 Where practical, adult plants should be uprooted, by pulling or with = a brush rake, with the roots left to dry. =09 This method is not appropriate for sensitive sites or sites with = species at risk. =09 This should be only done on heavily disturbed site, as much soil = will be exposed and gorse seeds in the soil will grow as a result. =09 Due to the high level of ground disturbance, a large number=20 of seedlings can be expected to emerge and should be pulled out before they become too large. =09 B. Cut the plant below ground level: =09 Since adult gorse plants do tend to resprout from roots, the plant = can be killed if the stem is cut _at least 5 cm_ below ground level. = However, care must be taken because prolific resprouting will result if the stem = is cut anywhere above the root.=20 =20 This method is applicable to small areas because it is extremely difficult and labour intensive. C. Cut the plant and treat the stump: =09 Cutting the plant and painting the stumps with a herbicide (Release) immediately after cutting appears to be the most effective way of = killing gorse on most sites. =20 D. Mulching: =09 Mulching a large area with uneven terrain is not economical, but mulching might have some limited application on small, selected areas = where other methods cannot be employed. The uprooted or cut plant material should be disposed of by chipping or removed from the site to avoid creating a fire=20 hazard. Burning gorse may not be desirable due to the high content of volatile oils in the branches which creates an oily, black smoke. Follow-up treatments will be necessary to control the seedlings that = emerge from the seed bank. The seedlings should be pulled out by hand before = they reach 50 cm in height, and not cut as cutting promotes sprouting. Since gorse seedlings are fairly slow growing, this follow-up treatment will likely not be required until the second year after the initial = treatment. It should be repeated every few years until the gorse plants are totally eradicated from the site. The initial treatment will be the most expensive due to the size of the adult plants, but follow-up treatment will be considerably less costly = and will become less expensive for each successive treatment. New infestation of gorse should be treated before older infestations. Younger plants are smaller and therefore easier and less costly to = remove. Early eradication also prevents the build up of a large seed bank on the site. Priority should be given to removal of gorse within 10 m of roads to = prevent spread of seeds by vehicles. Roads should be surveyed once a year for = new gorse infestations. These infestations should be removed by pulling the plants before they seed and create a seed bank. NEW BOOK: VEGETATION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC - VOLUME 1 Chytr=FD, M. (ed.) (2007): _Vegetace Cesk=E9 republiky: 1. = Travinn=E1 a ker=EDckov=E1 vegetace (Vegetation of the Czech Republic: 1. = Grassland and heathland vegetation)._ Academia, Praha, 525 p. ISBN = 978-80-200-1462-7 [hard cover] Price: 550.00 Kc=20 Orders can be placed at http://www.academia.cz/cs/kniha/vegetace-ceske-republiky-1 =20 =20 This is the first volume of the four-volume compendium on the Vegetation = of the Czech Republic. The first volume deals with 12 classes, 41 alliances = and 111 plant associations. These vegetation units were established based = on 21,794 releves using the computer techniques in the JUICE computer = program package (see above). The project aims at creating vegetation classification of the Czech Republic, based on the analysis of data from the Czech National Phytosociological Database and associated with a computer expert system = for automatic identification of vegetation units. The results will be = published in a four-volume monograph, which will contain descriptions of phytosociological associations, alliances and classes, comparative = tables of species composition, distribution maps and photographs of representative stands.=20 Individual volumes will contain:=20 1. Grassland and heathland vegetation (2007)=20 2. Ruderal, weed, rock and scree vegetation (2009)=20 3. Aquatic and wetland vegetation (2009)=20 4. Forest and scrub vegetation (2010) For more information on this project go to the Vegetation Science Group = web site http://www.sci.muni.cz/botany/vegsci/vegetace.php?lang=3Den =20 If you click on the link "Text", you will get a .doc file that contains = the unformatted text of this volume. If you do not read Czech, skip the = first 27 pages and starting with page 28, you will get an excellent English translation of the introductory chapters. The "Distribution Maps" will be of little interest to the foreign = readers,=20 BUT The "Tables" contain vegetation tables of all the syntaxonomical units covered in this volume. EXCERPTS FROM THE INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS: The demand by environment protection agencies for consistent and well-documented systems of vegetation classification led in the 1990s to = the implementation of modern national projects of vegetation classification = in some European countries, e.g., Great Britain (Rodwell 1990-2000), = Austria (Mucina et al. 1993), the Netherlands (Schamin=E9e et al. 1995-1999), = Slovakia (Valachovi? et al. 1995, Jarol=EDmek et al. 1997, Valachovi? 2001), = Germany (Dierschke 1996) and the German federal state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Berg et al. 2004).=20 These projects have the following features in common: thorough revision = of previously described vegetation units on the basis of a critical reassessment of large relev=E9 data sets; documentation of accepted associations using species composition tables; the detailed revision of = the nomenclature of vegetation units; and the compilation of the = distribution maps of phytosociological associations within the area in question. = Research teams have shared their experiences from these projects with vegetation scientists from other European countries at the annual meetings of the European Vegetation Survey working group that have been held every year since 1992 (Mucina et al. 1993c, Rodwell et al. 1995). This working = group has also produced the European synopsis of vegetation units at levels ranging from classes to alliances (Mucina 1997, Rodwell et al. 2002). Despite a long tradition of phytosociological research and a good level = of documentation of vegetation, the Czech Republic did not possess the = modern classification of vegetation. In 1995 a decision was made to start to = work on a new monograph entitled Vegetation of the Czech Republic. The = initial, partial goal was to generate the Czech National Phytosociological = Database which would contain the representative sample of relev=E9s from = different habitats and regions of the Czech Republic in an easily accessible electronic format (Chytr=FD & Rafajov=E1 2003). Such relev=E9s existed = but were scattered in a number of scientific books, articles, theses, unpublished research reports, inventory surveys of protected areas, field books and other written materials maintained by different botanists.=20 Thanks to Professor John S. Rodwell from Lancaster University (UK) and Stephan M. Hennekens from Alterra - Green World Research in Wageningen = (The Netherlands), we were able to use know-how from the British and Dutch vegetation classification projects from the very beginning of our work = on the database. In 1995-1997, John Rodwell arranged a series of courses to acquaint with the principles of phytosociological database management = and particularly with the computer program TURBOVEG (Hennekens 1995, = Hennekens & Schamin=E9e 2001). The author of this program Stephan=20 M. Hennekens kindly provided it to Czech users free of charge.=20 TURBOVEG was prepared for use in Central Europe in cooperation with colleagues from Austria (Ladislav Mucina, Harald Niklfeld, Walter = Gutermann) and Slovakia (Milan Valachovi?, Ivan Jarol=EDmek) and in 1996 it was = made accessible to all vegetation scientists in the Czech Republic (Chytr=FD = 1996). In February 1997 Masaryk University in cooperation with John Rodwell organized a TURBOVEG training course in Brno for colleagues and students from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Subsequently, a network of local TURBOVEG coordinators was established, which covered all major botanical institutions in the Czech Republic. Besides the creation of the relev=E9 database, the preparation of the monograph Vegetation of the Czech Republic also necessitated the = development and testing of methods for vegetation classification using large data = sets. In the case of data sets with tens of thousands of relev=E9s, standard = methods developed for classification of smaller data sets are not suitable or do = not allow the potential of these data to be fully exploited. In addition, = there has been only very limited experience with how various shortcomings in = data quality affect the analysis of large relev=E9 data sets. It was = therefore necessary to perform various methodological studies.=20 One of the challenges was to establish a method of selection of = relev=E9s from the database which would prevent the negative impact on the resultant classification caused by the uneven distribution of relev=E9s within the = Czech Republic (Knollov=E1 et al. 2005). For vegetation classification on the = basis of a phytosociological database, we selected the Cocktail method = (Bruelheide 1995, 2000). This method creates explicit definitions of vegetation = units which allow an unambiguous assignment of every relev=E9 to these units. = It thus allows matching of newly obtained relev=E9s to the units of = established classification. The Cocktail method underwent comprehensive testing and modifications and was extended with a procedure that enabled the = assignment of relev=E9s to vegetation units based on similarity (Ko?=ED et al. = 2003, Tich=FD 2005).=20 Attention was also devoted to the testing and development of statistical methods to determine species fidelity to vegetation units (Chytr=FD et = al. 2002, Tich=FD & Chytr=FD 2006), an important criterion in the = determination of diagnostic species and the presentation of vegetation classification in tables. Chytr=FD & Tich=FD (2003) calculated species fidelities to = vegetation classes and alliances of the current standard vegetation classification = of the Czech Republic (Moravec et al. 1995), using data from the Czech = National Phytosociological Database. Based on this analysis, they were able to evaluate the quality of delimitation of vegetation units. This work was = used as a guideline for identification of (1) which vegetation units from the current classification should be adopted in the new classification = system and (2) which should be eliminated or modified. Since 1998 all methods = of analysis of phytosociological data used in the project have been = included in the computer program JUICE (Tich=FD 2002), which has become a tool for = the comprehensive analysis of phytosociological data and is currently being = used by a number of individuals and institutions in many countries worldwide. References Berg, C.,J. Dengler, A. Abdank, & M. Isermann. (eds.) 2004.=20 _Die Pflanzengesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und ihre = Gef=E4hrdung - Textband._ Weissdorn-Verlag, Jena. Bruelheide, H. 1995. Die Gr=FCnlandgesellschaften des Harzes und =20 ihre Standortsbedingungen. Mit einem Beitrag zum Gliederungsprinzip = auf der Basis von statistisch ermittelten Artengruppen. _Diss. Bot._ 244: = 1-338. Bruelheide, H. 2000. A new measure of fidelity and its=20 application to defining species groups. _ J. Veg. Sci._ 11: = 167-178. Dierschke, H. (ed.) 1996. _Synopsis der Pflanzengesellschaften=20 Deutschlands. Heft 1._ Floristisch-soziologische = Arbeitsgemeinschaft G=F6ttingen. Chytr=FD, M. 1996. Datab=E1zov=FD syst=E9m pro projekt p?ehledu vegetace = =20 Cesk=E9 republiky. _Zpr=E1vy Cesk=E9 Bot. Spolecn._ 31: 193-200. Chytr=FD, M. & M. Rafajov=E1. 2003. Czech National Phytosociological=20 Database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. _Preslia_ 75: 1-15. Chytry, M. & L. Tich=FD. 2003. Diagnostic, constant and dominant=20 species of vegetation classes and alliances of the Czech Republic: a statistical revision. _Folia Fac. Sci. Nat.=20 Univ. Masarykianae Brun._ 108: 1-231. Hennekens, S.M. 1995. _TURBO(VEG). Software package for input,=20 processing, and presentation of phytosociological data.=20 User's guide._ IBN-DLO Wageningen, Lancaster University, Lancaster. Hennekens, S. M. & J.H.J. Schamin=E9e. 2001. TURBOVEG, a=20 comprehensive data base management system for vegetation=20 data. _ J. Veg. Sci._ 12: 589-591. Jarol=EDmek, I., M. Zaliberov=E1, L. Mucina, . & S. Mochnack=FD. 1997.=20 _Rastlinn=E9 spolocenstv=E1 Slovenska 2. Synantropn=E1 veget=E1cia_. = Veda, Bratislava. Knollov=E1, I., M. Chytr=FD, L. Tich=FD, & O. H=E1jek. 2005.=20 Stratified resampling of phytosociological databases: some = strategies for obtaining more representative data sets for classification = studies. _J. Veg. Sci._ 16: 479-486. Koc=ED, M., M. Chytr=FD, & L. Tich=FD. 2003. Formalized reproduction=20 of an expert-based phytosociological classification: A case study of subalpine tall-forb vegetation. _ J. Veg. Sci._ 14: 601-610. Mucina, L. 1997. Conspectus of classes of European vegetation.=20 _Folia Geobot. Phytotax._ 32: 117-172. Mucina, L., G. Grabherr, T. Ellmauer, & S. Walln=F6fer. (eds.)=20 1993. _Die Pflanzengesellschaften =D6sterreichs. Teil I-III._ Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena/Stuttgart/New York. Moravec, J., E. Bal=E1tov=E1-Tul=E1ckov=E1, D. Bla=BEkov=E1, E. Hadac, = S.=20 Hejn=FD, =A9 Hus=E1k, J. Jen=EDk, J. Kolbek, F. Krahulec, Z. = Krop=E1c, R., Neuh=E4usl, K. Rybn=EDcek, V. Rehorek, & J. Vicherek. 1995. = Rostlinn=E1 Spolecenstva Cesk=E9 republiky a jejich ohro=BEen=ED. Ed. 2. = _Severoceskou Pr=EDr._, Pr=EDl. 1995/1: 1-206. Rodwell , J. S. (ed.) 1990-2000. _British plant communities. Vol.=20 1-5._ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rodwell, J. S., S. Pignatti, L. Mucina, & J.H. Schamin=E9e.=20 1995. European Vegetation Survey: update on progress. _J. Veg. = Sci._ 6: 759-762. Rodwell , J. S. J.H. Schamin=E9e, L. Mucina, S. Pignatti, J.=20 Dring, & D. Moss. 2002. _The Diversity of European Vegetation. An overview of phytosociological alliances and their relationships to = EUNIS habitats._ EC-LNV, Wageningen. Schamin=E9e, J. H., A.H.F. Stortelder, V. Westhoff, E.J. Weeda, &=20 P.W.F.M. Hommel. (eds.) 1995-1999. _De vegetatie van Nederland. = Deel 1-5._ Opulus Press, Uppsala/Leiden. Tich=FD, L. 2002. JUICE, software for vegetation classification.=20 _J. Veg. Sci._ 13: 451-453. Tich=FD, L. 2005. New similarity indices for the assignment of=20 relev=E9s to the vegetation units of an existing phytosociological classification. _Pl. Ecol._ 179: 67-72. Valachovic, M. (ed.) 2001. _Rastlinn=E9 spolocenstv=E1 Slovenska. 3.=20 Veget=E1cia mokrad=ED._ Veda, Bratislava. Valachovic, M., H. Otahelov=E1, V.Stanov=E1, & =A9. Maglock=FD. 1995.=20 _Rastlinn=E9 spolocenstv=E1 Slovenska 1. Pionierska veget=E1cia._ = Veda, Bratislava.