PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 4, WINTER 1995
The Botanical Society of America: The Society for ALL Plant Biologists

Table of Contents

News from the Society, the Sections and the Committees

BSA Officers 1994—1995    106
Ecological Section News    111
BSA Symposia at the 1995 Meeting    113
From a New Corresponding Member    113
Botany and the INTERNET    114

Commentary

Importance of the INTERNET    115
General Botany: A Common Concern    115
PSB Needs a New Editor    117 Articles
Gap Analysis Approaches to Mapping and Managing Biodiversity B. Csuti   118
Gaps in GAP C. Dunn    119

Announcements

Botany recognized in popular culture    122
Call for Nomination: Darbaker Prize    122
Persona/la    122
In Memoriam    122
Educational Opportunities    124
Funding Opportunities    125
Positions Available    126
Symposia, Conferences, Meetings    132
Book Reviews    134
Books Received    142
New Year greeting    143
BSA Logo Items Available from the Business Office    144

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 4, WINTER, 1994

Editor: Meredith A. Lane
McGregor Herbarium, University of Kansas
2045 Constant Ave.
Lawrence KS 66047-3729 913/864-4493
FAX: 913/864-5298 or -5093
E-MAIL: MLANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU

News from the Society, the Sections and the Committees

BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA OFFICERS 1994 - 1995
* = Members of the Council (retirement date)

*PRESIDENT
Harry T. Homer (1995)
Department of Botany
Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011-1020
(515) 294-8635 FAX 294-1337

*PRESIDENT-ELECT
Barbara Schaal (1995)
Department of Biology
Box 1137
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
(314)935-6822 FAX 935-4432

*SECRETARY
Darleen A. DeMason (1997)
Botany and Plant Sciences
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
(909)787-3580 FAX 787-4437

*TREASURER
Judy Jernstedt (1995)
Dept. of Agronomy & Range Science
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA 95616 - 8515
(916) 752-7166 FAX 752-4361

*PROGRAM DIRECTOR
Carol C. Baskin (1996)
School of Biological Sciences
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0225
(606) 257-8770 FAX 257-1717

*PAST PRESIDENT, 1994
Grady L. Webster
Section of Plant Biology
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
(916) 752-2139 (1091) FAX 752-5410

*PAST PRESIDENT, 1993
Gregory J. Anderson
Ecology and Evolutionary Biol. U-43
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269-3043
(203)486-4322 FAX 486-6364

*PAST PRESIDENT, 1992
William Louis Culberson
Department of Botany
Duke University
Durham, NC 27708-0338
(919) 684-3715 FAX 684-5412

*COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
*Judy Verbeke (1995)
Department of Plant Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
(602) 621-8423 FAX (602) 621-2012

PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

ISSN 0032-0919
Published quarterly by Botanical Society of America, Inc., 1735 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210
Second class postage paid at Columbus, OH and additional mailing office.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to

Kim Hiser, Business Manager
Botanical Society of America
1735 Neil Ave.
Columbus OH 43210-1293
Phone/Fax: 614/292-3519  

106

*EDITOR, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY

Nels Lersten (1994)
Department of Botany
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011-1020
(515) 294-8448 (2169) FAX 294-8448

after Jan. 1, 1995

*EDITOR, AMER/CAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Karl J. Niklas
217 Plant Science Bldg.
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-5908
(607) 255-8727 FAX (607) 255-5407

*EDITOR, PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN
Meredith A. Lane (1995)
Dept. of Botany & McGregor Herbarium
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66047-3729
(913) 864-4493 FAX 864-5298

*BUSINESS MANAGER
Kim Hiser
Botanical Society of America
1735 Neil Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1293
(614) 292-3519 (Phone and FAX)

SECTION OFFICERS
(* = Representative for the Section to the Council)

BRYOLOGICAL AND LICHENOLOGICAL

*Chairperson (1995)
Karen Renzaglia
Department of Biological Science
P.O. Box 70703
East Tennessee State University
Johnson City, TN 37601- 0703
(615) 929-6930 (6931) FAX 929-5958

Chairperson-Elect (1998)
Paula DePriest
Department of Botany, NHB - 166
National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
(202) 357-2545, (301) 238-3790 FAX (202)786-2563

DEVELOPMENTAL AND STRUCTURAL

*Chairperson (1995)
Judy Verbeke
Department of Plant Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
(602) 621-8423 FAX (602)621-2012

Program Director (1994)
James L. Seago, Jr.
Department of Biology
SUNY, College at Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
(315)341-2777 FAX 341-2916

Treasurer (1996)
Pamela Diggle
EPO Biology
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0334
(303) 492-4860

PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN - Editorial Committee for Volume 40
Clifford W. Smith (1994), Dept. of Botany, University of Hawaii, Honolulu HI 96822
Donald S. Galitz (1995), Dept. of Botany, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58103
Robert E. Wyatt (1996), Dept. of Botany, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
James D. Mauseth (1997), Dept. of Botany, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78713
Allison A. Snow (1998), Dept. of Plant Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210

107

ECOLOGY

*Chair (1995)
Kathleen L. Shea
Department of Biology St. Olaf College
Northfield, MN 55057
(507) 646-3396 FAX 646-3104

Vice-Chairperson (1995)
Sandra J. Newell
Department of Biology
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Indiana, PA 15705
(412) 357-4462 FAX 357-6213

Secretary (1995)
Beverly Collins
Savannah River Ecology Lab
P.O. Drawer E
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-2472 FAX 725-3309

ECONOMIC BOTANY

Chairperson (1993)
Thomas Mione
Biological Sciences-Copernicus Hall
Central Connecticut State Univ.
New Britain, CT 06050-4010
(203)827-7082 FAX 827-7877

*Secretary-Treasurer (1994)
James S. Miller
Missouri Botanical Garden P.O. Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
(314)577-9503 FAX 577-9596

HISTORICAL

Chairperson (1995)
Margaret R. Bolick
W-530 Nebraska Hall
University of Nebraska State Museum
Lincoln, NE 68588-0514
(402) 472-2613 FAX 472-8949

Vice-Chairperson (1995)
Peter F. Stevens
Harvard University Herbaria
22 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-2348 FAX 495-9484

*Secretary-Treasurer (1995)
Laurence J. Dorr
Department of Botany, NHB-166
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
(202) 633-9106 or 357-2534 FAX 786-2563

Chairperson (1995)
Joanne Whallon
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
(517) 353-0837 FAX 353-5174

Vice Chairperson (1995)
*Donald Hauber
Department of Biological Science
Loyola University
Box 27
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 865-2769 FAX 865-2149

Secretary-Treasurer (1995)
Kenneth G. Wilson
Department of Botany
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-6601 FAX 529-4243

Editor, Newsletter (1999)
Vance Baird
Horticultural Department
Plant and Animal Science Building
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0375
(803) 656-4953 FAX 656-4960

PHYCOLOGICAL

*Chairperson (1995)
Dorothy Chappell
Academic Dean
Gordon College
255 Grapevine Rd.
Wenham, MA 01984
(508) 927-2306 FAX 524-3726

Secretary (1996)
John LaClaire
Department of Botany
BIO 308
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78713
(512) 471-3577 FAX 471-3878

MYCOLOGICAL

Contact Person   *Kenneth J. Curry
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Univ. of Southern Mississippi
Box 5018
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5018 (
601)266-4930 FAX 266-5797

108

PTERIDOLOGICAL

Chairperson
John T. Mice
New York Botanical Garden
Bronx, NY 10458-5126
(718) 817-8636 FAX 817-6504

*Secretary-Treasurer (1996)
David S. Conant
Department of Natural Science
Lyndon State College
Lyndonvillc, VT 05851
(802) 626-9371 Ext-185

SYSTEMATICS

*Chairperson (1995)
Robert S. Wallace
Department of Botany Bessey Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011-1020
(515) 294-0367 FAX 294-1337

Secretary-Treasurer (1996)
Wayne J. Elisens
Department of Botany & Microbiology
770 Van Vlect Oval
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019 (405)
325-5923 FAX 325-7619

TROPICAL BIOLOGY

Chairperson (1994)
W. John Kress
Department of Botany INHB-166
Smithsonian Insitution
Washington, DC 20560
(202) 357-3392 FAX 786-2563

*Secretary-Treasurer (1994)
Suzanne Koptur
Biology Department
Florida Intemational University
Miami, FL 33199
(305) 348-3103 FAX 348-1986

PALEOBOTANICAL

Chairperson (1995)
Bruce Tiffney
Department of Geological Sciences
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
(805)893-2959 FAX 893-2314

*Secretary-Treasurer (1995)
Charles P. Daghlian
Dartmouth College
Rippel EM Facility
Hanover, NH 03755-3832
(603) 650-1337 FAX 650-1637

Editor, BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN (PALEOBOTANY (1996)
Steven R. Manchester
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Museum Road, P.O. Box 117800
Gainesville, FL 32611-7800
(904) 392-6564 or 1721 FAX 392 8783

PHYSIOLOGICAL

*Chairperson (1995)
Amrita G. DeSoyza
USDA/ARS Jomada Exp. Station
New Mexico State University
Box 3003, Dept. 3JER
Las Cruces, NM 88003-0003
(505) 646-6401 FAX 646-5889

Program Director/Newsletter Editor (1995)
Peter F. Straub
Natur. Sci. and Math. Div.
Richard Stockton College
Pomona, N.J. 08201
(609) 652-4969 FAX

PHYTOCHEMICAL

*Chairperson (1996)
Susan S. Martin
USDA Crops Research Lab
1701 Center Avenue
Fort Collins CO 80526
(303) 498-4212 FAX 482-2909

Secrctary/Program Organizer (1996)
Emanuel Johnson
Building 001, Room 308 BARC-W
Tropical Plants Research Lab
Beltsville, MD 20705
(301) 504-5323 FAX 504-6491

Treasurer-Editor (1996)
W. Dennis Clark
Department of Botany
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287
(602) 965-4482 FAX 965-6899

109

MIDCONTINENT

*Chairperson (1996)
H. James Price
Soil and Crop Sciences Department
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
(409)845-8294 FAX 845-0456

Vice Chairperson (1996)
Wayne J. Elisens
Department of Botany and Microbiology
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73091
(405) 325-5923 FAX 325-7619

Secretary/Treasurer (1995)
Timothy K. Lowrey
Department of Biology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
(505) 277-2604 FAX 277-0304

Vice Secretary/Creasurer(1995)
Ralph Bertrand
Biology Department
Colorado College
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719)389-6402 FAX 389-6929

NORTHEASTERN

*Chairperson (1995)
Simon Dabydeen Biology Department
Foostburg State University
Frostburg, MD 21532
(301) 689-4213 (4166) FAX 689-4731

Treasurer (1995)
Karl Anderson
Rancocas Nature Center 794 Rancocas Road
Mount Holly, NJ 08060 (609) 261-2495

Secretary (1995)
Kathy Bilton

PACIFIC

Chairperson (1995)
Fred Rickson
Department of Botany
Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-2902
(503)737-5272 FAX 737-3573

*Secretary-Treasurer (1995)
David E. Bilderback
Department of Botany
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
(406) 243-2632 FAX 243-4076

SOUTHEASTERN

*Chairperson (1997)
Joe E. Winstead
Department of Biology
Western Kentucky University
Bowling Green, KY 42101
(502) 745-6004 FAX 745-6471

Activities Committee Chair (1996)
Charles R. Werth
Department of Biological Science
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-3222 FAX 742-2963

Secretary-Treasurer (1995)
J. Richard Carter, Jr.
Biology Department
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
(912) 333-5759 ext. 5763 FAX 333-7408

110

Ecological Section News

Best Student Paper Award

It was exciting to see the interest and enthusiasm for Ecological Section symposia and contributed paper sessions at the 1994 BSA Meeting in Knoxville. The Best Student Paper Award went to Andrea L. Case, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, for her talk "Parental effects in Plantago lanceolata L.: Manipulation of grandparental temperature and parental flowering time," with Elizabeth P. Lacey and Robin G. Hopkins as co-authors. She receives a cash prize of $100 and will be recognized at the 1995 BSA banquet in San Diego.

At the Ecological Section Business meeting members voted to increase the amount of the Best Student Paper Award to $150 for next year. Provided there is enough interest we will also offer a $150 student poster award. Please encourage your students to apply for these awards and let Brian Mc Carthy, Coordinator of Best Student Paper Awards, Ohio University, know if you are willing to help judge papers.

Corresponding Member Nominations

We encourage members to think about nominations for Corresponding Members, senior scientists who live and work outside the United States, in the field of plant ecology. As reported in the fall PLANT SCIENCE BOLtETIN, only four Corresponding Members are ecologists. In 1993 the section sponsored the nomination and selection of Carlos M. Herrera of Spain.

Please Submit News Items

Members of the Ecological Section are encouraged to

send additional news items or ideas for the section to Kathleen Shea, Ecological Section Chair, Dept. of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 (e-mail sheak@stolaf.edu).

Symposium Report:

Belowground Competition in Plants

The symposium entitled "l3elowground Competition in Plants," organized by Brenda Casper (Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018) at the 1994 BSA meeting in Knoxville was sponsored by the Ecological Section of BSA and cosponsored by the Ecological Society. The symposium addressed questions related to the processes of root interactions and how belowground competition affects the structure of plant populations and communities. Talks covered topics ranging from physiological mechanisms of root competition to consequences of soil resource variation for aboveground plant performance.

Root interactions may involve either exploitative competition for soil resources or interference interactions such as allelopathy. Robert Jackson (Stanford) and Martyn Caldwell (Utah State; presented by Carol Bilbrough, Utah State) included information on interspecific competition for N and P in a sagebrush steppe and introduced a model that used root at-tributes and field data to predict relative competitive abilities in homogeneous and heterogeneous soils. Bruce Mahall (UC Santa Barbara) described intraspecific and intcrspecific inhibitory interactions among the roots of two desert shrubs. His data indicate that 1) roots of Ambrosia dumosa collected from two different regions do not exhibit inhibitory interactions as do roots from individuals collected within the same region and 2) roots of the same cloned genotype exhibit inhibition unless they are sister roots on the same plant. Jacob Weiner (Swarthmore) reported experimental evidence that, unlike aboveground competition, bclowground competition is symmetric. In aboveground competition larger plants enjoy a disproportionate advantage, but bclowground competition appears to be proportional to plant size.

How the amount and distribution of bclowground re-sources affect relative competitive abilities was another theme of the symposium. In population-level studies with Abutilon theophrasti, Brenda Casper and James Cahill (U of Pennsylvania) found that spatial soil nutrient heterogeneity had very little effect on productivity or population size structure but influenced which individuals were likely to become dominant in the population. Kevin Kosola (Michigan State) discussed ongoing research with Katherine Gross and Kurt Pregitzer regarding how old field plant communities respond to changing levels of soil nutrient heterogeneity that occur over successional time. Their work pays particular attention to potential differences between annuals and perennials. Scott Wilson (U of Regina) examined the relative importance of aboveground and belowground competition across different levels of soil nitrogen and disturbance in old field vegetation. He concluded that aboveground competition becomes relatively more important at higher nitrogen levels and that the examined species differ little in their responses.

Although the air conditioning was off for a while and the room was crowded, the symposium generated much interest and comment. During the general discussion following the talks there was consideration of soil resources, such as water, that had not been addressed by the presentations and a lively conversation regarding what can be learned about belowground competition from experiments with potted plants. Although bclowground competition is recognized as an important process in plant communities, it is clear that ecologists are just beginning to understand how plants forage for soil resources, how the competition takes place, and its impact on community structure.

Symposium Report:

Ecological and Evolutionary Roles of Plant Disease in Managed and

Natural Ecosystems

The symposium entitled "Ecological and Evolutionary Roles of Plant Disease in Managed and Natural Ecosystems," organized by Johanne Brunet (Dept. of Botany and Plant Pathology Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 ) and Christopher Mundt at the 1994 BSA Meeting in Knoxville was sponsored by the Ecological Section of BSA. A major theme of this symposium was examination of the factors that maintain polymorphism for resistance genes in natural populations. Both resistance and susceptibility genes have been found in most natural populations examined, and one must wonder why, if resistance carries such a selective advantage to the host, the resistance genes do not become fixed in the population. Other presentations discussed the contribution of molecular and phenotypic analyses to the study of pathogen populations, an important subject as the use of molecular tools increases. Lastly, in contrast to a plant- pathogen system, pattems of variation within and among populations were de-

111

scribed for a plant-mutualist system, where, unlike plant pathogens, there is no selection on hosts to avoid the interaction. Each speaker presented some new, interesting and innovative contribution to the study of plant–pathogen interactions.

Steve Frank (UC Irvine) introduced a multilocus model of gene-for-gene interactions which included both costs of resistance and virulence. The model ad equately explained the distribution of resistance and virulence alleles observed in natural populations. Dr. Frank suggested that one way to circumvent the cost dilemma, would be to think of the system of host-pathogen recognition as an allele-to-allele system rather than the typical gene-to-gene system. Indeed as the number of alleles increases, expectations from the two systems become increasingly similar. With an allele-to-allele system of recognition, equilibria theoretically can be obtained in the absence of cost. This is an attractive idea awaiting stronger empirical support.

Andrew Jarosz (Michigan State) and collaborators Janis Antonovics and Peter Thrall (Duke University) proposed that the pattern of resistance and susceptibility observed in natural populations may best be explained at the metapopulation rather than the population level. Their data on the Silene alba-Ustilago violacea system suggest instability at the population level, as disease is often purged from populations in years when few plants survive the winter. The number of infected Silene populations is, however, increasing. Simulation results indicate how metapopulation structure can enhance pathogen persistence. The variation in colonization and extinction rates of Silene-Ustilago populations helps explain this system at the metapopulation scale. While Ustilago violacea is transferred by a moth and behaves like a sexually transmitted disease, further studies will determine how important metapopulation level phenomena are to plant-pathogen dynamics in general.

Johanne Brunet and collaborators Christopher Mundt and Shamsul Akanda (Oregon State), experimentally manipulated races of stripe rust on different genotypes of wheat, to deter-mine whether disease creates frequency-dependent selection on its host. Frequency- dependent selection has indeed been invoked to explain both the maintenance of polymorphism for resistance genes in populations, and how pathogens may select for sexual reproduction. The authors found no evidence for frequency-dependent selection in the presence or absence of disease. No negative relationships were detected between a genotype's fitness and its planted frequency. While genotypes suffered more disease at high than low frequency, a genotype's fitness did not decrease as the level of disease increased on that genotype. This lack of relationship between disease level and genotype fitness may have serious implications on the way one examines cost of resistance in plant-pathogen systems.

Ellen Simms (U of Chicago) examined how tolerance, or the ability to compensate in part for fitness decrements due to disease, can influence detection of fitness cost of resistance genes. Indeed if genotypes with low resistance have high tolerance and vice versa for genotypes of high resistance (i.e. if tolerance and resistance were negatively correlated), one would expect no relationship between the level of disease on various individuals and the fitness of these individuals. While the experimental data would suggest no cost of resistance, in reality one would have to disentangle the effect of tolerance and resistance on an individual's fitness before reaching any conclusion. Although this interplay between tolerance and resistance might explain why experiments have only detected small costs of resistance, there is no evidence that resistance and tolerance are negatively genetically correlated.

Using both wheat, Mycosphaerella graminicola, and rice, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, pathogens, Christopher Mundt and his associates demonstrated how variation in RFLPs is very useful to establish the genetic structure of a pathogen population, but that it cannot detect the distribution of selectable variation within a population. Indeed, even when RFLP data showed little variation, the authors consistently found considerable variation in and selection for adaptation to host genotypes within a lineage. Phenotypic analyses are necessary to measure selection on pathogens within a population. The use of molecular analyses of selectively neutral DNA are useful for describing the genetic structure of (variation within and between) pathogen populations.

Matthew Parker (SUNY Binghamton) examined variation both within and among populations in a legume-Bradyrhizohium mutualism. Unlike plant-pathogen systems, plants in a plant-mutualistic system benefit from the interaction. Using multilocus allele combinations, and sampling 20 populations across four states, Parker distinguished two major lineages of Amphicarpaea hracteata and subsequently examined bacterial lineages associated with host lineage. While some bacteria were restricted to one plant lineage, others associated with both. Some bacterial genotypes could not form nodules on host genotypes distinct from the ones found in their native populations, and even if nodules were formed, symbiotic performance was often inferior. This suggests local adapt ation as plants benefit more from interactions with bacterial genotypes of their own native habitat. There was some evidence of parallel population differentiation between host and pathogens, but that was not true for all bacterial genotypes. Spatial pattems of genotypic associations suggested long-term historical continuity between particular host and some bacterial lineages. Significant progress has been made in the field of plant–pathogen interactions, yet many questions remain unanswered. This is an exciting field of research, open to new ideas and further contributions.

112

BSA-Sponsored Symposia for the 1995 AIBS Meeting

Insights from Recent Studies of Early Succession
Conservation Biology: Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice
Population Biology of Grasses
Genetic Engineering and the Conservation of Rare Plant Species
Morphological and Developmental Mutants of Maize
Medicinal Plants: The Importance and Impact of the Search for Plant Derived Drugs
Biology and Evolution of the Gnetales
Practical and Theoretical Aspects of Incorporating Fossils in Analyses of Modem Taxonomic Groups
Translating Phylogenetic Analyses into Classifications
Essential Botanical Knowledge at the College and University Level
Multimedia in Botany and Biology Classrooms: How to Pay for It and How to Build It into Courses
Alternatives to the Traditional Lecture Format in Undergraduate Biology Courses
Forensic Botany: Plant Sciences in the Courts

Harry T. Homer, President

BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Department of Botany Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011-1020 U.S.A.

Dear Dr. Homer:

I was delighted to learn of my election as a Corresponding Member of the Botanical Society of America. I am honored by this expression by the membership of the Society. I look forward to participating in the activities of several sections and will be delighted to receive the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY

and the PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN.

Please convey my appreciation to the membership of the society for this honor.

I hope to attend next year's meeting in San Diego and look forward to meeting you.

Sincerely,

113

Botany and the INTERNET

Computerized Global Plant Checklist

The International Organization for Plant Information (IOPI) was set up to prepare and promote a series of computerized databases on plants of the world. It was begun in 1991 by an international group of botanists and computer scientists. IOPI's still-growing membership now includes nearly 100 botanical institutions and related organization, plus botanical specialists in 30 countries. We are also reaching out to include additional producers and users of plant information.

IOPI aims to establish a network of integrated, reliably documented, automated databases on the world's plants, including their names, biological attributes, potential for utilization, and conservation-related data. This goal is an innovative effort by the botanical community to provide up-to-date and accessible information on plant taxonomy and biology to people who use it daily. The project will ultimately result in a more efficient and effective means of providing basic plant information to users and guiding them toward sources of authoritative data.

IOPI's initial project is a Global Plant Checklist for vascular plant species. Eventually, the Checklist will also include nonvascular plants. It will be of great benefit to natural and genetic resource managers, agronomists, conservationists, pharmaceutical researchers, botanists, biodiversity inventories, horticulturists, and other users of plant information. The checklist will serve as a taxonomic backbone to which users can append their more specialized information. Producing the checklist is a complex and time-consuming task involving more than 300,000 vascular species and over 1,000,000 names and requiring an unparalleled degree of worldwide cooperation. However, this project is essential if humanity is to incorporate current knowledge into its efforts, plus manage plant biodiversity efficiently and sustainably.

Our broad strategy for producing the Checklist is to merge currently dispersed sources of taxonomic information (e.g. databases, floras, monographic treatments, or herbarium data) into a computer-accessible format. The merged data will be edited for consensus and consistency by a worldwide network of taxonomic specialists. Over time the Checklist will become increasingly useful owing to refinements from taxonomic review and the incorporation of additional data sets. It will be available both as a dynamic database and as periodic hard copy publications.

IOPI Global Plant Checklist Committee: For more information on the Checklist or your possible participation, please contact Karen Wilson, Convener, Royal Botanic Gardens, Mrs. Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000 Australia; fax: 61-2-251-7231; email: karen@rbgsyd.gov.au.

IOPI Electronic News Service: IOPI maintains a regular news service. To register contact David Green via email: david.green@anu.edu.au. Previously distributed IOPI messages can be accessed via the Australian National University's bigopher service.

IOPI Database of Plant Databases: IOPI maintains a register of databases containing plant data from throughout the world. To submit information about your database, please contact Richard Pankhurst, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh EH3 5LR Scotland or via email: rjp@castle.ed.ac.uk.

IOPI Secretary and Membership: To join IOPI or obtain more information, contact Alex George 18 Barclay Road, Kardinya, WA 6163 Australia [Fax: 61-9-337-9404]. To receive information by email, contact iopi@cjb.unige.ch.

Plant Education Newsgroup

A mailing list for a new prototype BIOSCI ncwsgroup: "plant-education" has been established for plant biologists who teach or are involved in teaching courses on plants. BIOSCI newsgroups are electronic forums using USENET news software or e-mail where subscribers can participate in discussions on a variety of specific topics. This mailing list is devoted solely to an aspect of education. It will complement a variety of established newsgroups emphasizing plant research. The plant-education mailing list will allow instructors, lab preparators, and graduate assistants who teach courses in any aspect of plant biology to discuss topics pertaining to their undergraduate and graduate level plant courses. This mailing list is intended to be 1) a resource for the exchange of laboratory methodologies and classroom activities, 2) a source of quick help for last-minute troubleshooting, conditions for plant growth, sources of materials, and practical advice, 3) a forum for discussing open-ended investigative laboratory projects, 4) a forum for discussing text-books, and 5) an archive of searchable information for future use by instructors of plant courses.

To subscribe, send the command "subscribe plant-ed" to: biosci-server@nct.bio.net. General information about existing BIOSCI newsgroups, subscribing, unsubscribing, searching BIOSCI archives, and FAQs can also be obtained electronically. If you are located in the Americas, or Pacific Rim countries, send a message to: biosci@net.bio.net. Instructions will be returned automatically, so the contents of your message do not matter. If you are located in Europe, Africa, or Central Asia send an e-mail message containing the word "help" in the body to: MXT@dl.ac.uk. In either case the subject will be ignored.

As an unmoderated mailing list, all postings will be automatically distributed to all subscribers. Replies can be made either to the sender individually or to all subscribers. As a prototype newsgroup, this mailing list is currently in the trial period in which the propose and future of the group should be debated. In February of 1995 the future of the group will be put to a vote after which it will either become a full-fledged newsgroup or be terminated. Therefore, participate and insure the future if this group! The discussion leaders are Jonathan D. Monroe, Department of Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807 (e-mail: fac_jmonroc@vaxl.acs.jmu.edu) and Susan R. Singer, Biology Department, Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057 (e-mail: ssinger@carleton.edu).

Peabody Museum Gopher

The Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University is pleased to announce the availability of a Gopher server for Internet access to its collections. The Gopher at the present time contains data on over 1 million of the museum's approximately 11 million specimens/objects. Among the material

online are 497 types from the collection in Paleobotany.

The Peabody Gopher also offers a geographic name locator service, an abridged version of the USGS "Geographic Names Database." It contains 133,813 records of populated places, and 1,100,120 records representing other geographical features.

The Peabody Gopher's address is: gopher.peabody.yale.edu, port 70. Comments are best aimed via e-mail at the Collections Manager in the discipline of interest. See the "Staff Electronic Mail Addresses" file on the main menu of the gopher for further information.

114

Commentary

should be to transfer enthusiasm and excitement from the instructor to the students. Generally, this is accomplished through plant appreciation, the illustration of biological principles and the accumulation of factual knowledge. As a result of these considerations, the students should gain sufficient knowledge to "speak" botany. The instructor must be a volunteer dedicated to making the course "work" and not a conscript. An assessment of the long-term value of a given course is sometimes disconcerting. I asked my students to write to me ten years after taking my class and tell me what they remembered from my course. This request was terminated when, at the end of the semester, a student asked, "You said that we should write to you but I don't remember what we were supposed to say." Specific long-range goals may be difficult to attain.

I have the following objectives in our General Botany course: Clarity of information, life plans (cycles), relevance, botanical fluency, appreciation, academic performance, and discipline. In response to these objectives, I have devised a program to meet our goals while providing an interesting, enjoyable, challenging, "humorous" presentation of a "body" of botanical information. Our course is intended for biology majors who sometimes express the attitude that they are not interested in plants—no matter what you may say or do. With these considerations in mind, we have developed a number of strategies.

We use a textbook (The Biology of Plants, Raven, Evert and Eichhorn) which is comprehensive and well-presented. For those (most) who have a limited budget, we purchase a few copies and place these on a desk-reserve. We try to assist the students and show that we are sincerely interested in their progress. The lectures each have an array of slides, always prefaced by an appropriate cartoon slide. In order to relate directly to the textbook, we use projection slides of selected text-book figures and charts supplemented with an array of additional examples. Current plans include the use of video images. Specific points on the slides are indicated using a long-handle custom pointer. Each pointer highlights a portion of the lecture—a moss capsule expelling powder spores, a plant sprayed with gibberellin, which partially elongates are included in the collection. The individual pointers are not discussed but

serve as a point of interest. Each lecture is recorded and the slides and tapes are placed in our library for student review and clarification. Lecture attendance is stressed by circulating an occasional attendance list.

When appropriate, practical examples are included to point out the importance of botany in our everyday activities. Selected topics, associated with foods, are illustrated by providing samples to the students during lecture—walnut samples illustrating the furrowed brain-like appearance associated with the Doctrine-of-Signatures, marinated mushrooms with a hand-out

Importance of the INTERNET

Editor,

I agree with Chris Haufler (PSB 40: 35) on importance of E-mail in scientific community communication. I like it and use as often as possible. I am editing a worldwide directory called MYCOLOGISTS ONLINE, focused on mycologists and lichenologists, which is available online at Biodiversity and Biological Collections Gopher now at Cornell University

<m u se. b i o. cornel l . edu> .

Pavel Lizon, Cornell University <PL18@cornell.edu>

General Botany: A Common Concern Editor:

I write in response to the article in PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN 40: 42-46, which contained many good suggestions for recruitment and retention of students into a major in the plant sciences. My own suggestions are specifically geared to courses in General Botany, which may be taken by majors and non-majors alike. Botanists have long recognized problems associated with the relatively poor botanical preparation of entering college students—as a result of the relegation of plants to a minor role in most high school biology courses, in turn resulting from the relatively minor role of plants in biology courses required in the educational programs of teachers. A continuing debate centers on the importance of botany in biology courses. In summary: Is botany important? Is botany interesting? Should we spend time learning about plants when molecular biology is of increasing significance? What is the importance of plants as organisms? Botanists should accept the challenge and lead a recrudescence of plant biology. Our efforts should be focused on the general botany course in order to create and project a "cutting edge" approach that emphasizes the importance of our understanding of plant biology. We need an electrifying approach to highlight the importance of plants as organisms and as a source of molecules for biology majors and non-majors—maintaining and expanding our interest in botany as a discipline. Botany should not be archival!

I would like to outline the approach we take here at the College of William and Mary with the hope that our objectives and methods will serve as a stimulus for innovative minds to develop vital botany courses which will have an impact on student interest.

The primary objective of a general botany course

115

recipe to illustrate one of the important aspects of basidiomycete biology. Botany must be relevant. I would like students to think of the botanical structures associated with their foods and surroundings—collenchyma in celery, endosperm and corn oil, soybean products everywhere, etc.

The lectures also include a pertinent research presentation, including current topics such as Plant Biotechnology, provided by a scientist who can meet with students and discuss research and career opportunities. What do botanists do?—is an important consideration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an excellent source of speakers who can be available within a day trip. I also try to identify areas of general societal concern, such as acid rain or the search for botanical drugs, to explore through readings from local newspapers, the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, or other sources. This general exposure example is further emphasized by information presented in lecture and a phone conference in the lecture auditorium. Speaker phones are obtained, a pre-arranged phone call is placed during lecture and the students are afforded the opportunity to ask questions. A few questions are prepared by students in advance in order to insure a flow of discussion. The relative spontaneity and the ability to interact with a "famous" scientist add additional interest.

The semester also includes a special lecture which features a 3-D slide summary of the plant kingdom. This requires considerable advance preparation because 3-D slides must be prepared and projected. We have purchased equipment for the production of 3-D images—200 pairs of polarized glasses for viewing, a stereo camera, a double lens projector and a special screen. The presentation of plants "jutting" from the screen makes a lasting impression of an added botanical dimension. Academic illusions are also created by the incorporation of botanical "magic" into a few lecture presentations. A small plant is made to appear from an empty box using the magic square, factors inducing the flowering response are illustrated using the spontaneous appearance of a sleeve bouquet. Water relations are discussed using a feather flower which

wilts on command. These gimmicks are easily per-formed by a professor of average intelligence, and generate a student attitude of "I wonder what s/he's going to do today." Teaching botany is always more effective when it is an enjoyable experience.

Performance on exams is of utmost importance to the students and the staff. We recognize both accomplishment and lack of performance. After each exam we award free plants to those students who achieved an "A" grade for the work they have accomplished, and to those students who received an "F" for the work which they will accomplish. The students appreciate this recognition of accomplishment and relate to the importance of individual student performance at both ends of the grade distribution. Review sessions are generally ineffective, so we have encouraged a Peer Helper system. A sign-up list contains those students who would like help and those students who are willing to spend time helping. These "in-course" tutors provide a one-on-one or small group effective study method to re-place the standard reviews. Students who achieve an "A" grade are further recognized by a congratulatory letter at the end of the semester.

A small demonstration of our consideration of student schedules involves a squeaky toy which is tossed to a random student at the beginning of each lecture. A squeak serves to signal the end of the allotted lecture period. This minor activity has become a tradition and an honor to be the squeaker who insures an on-time presentation and a concern for student schedules.

Each semester we also have the annual "Great Kalanchoe Grow-off." Students may complete a registration form and select a small foliar plantlet (epiphyllous bud) to grow under their "best" conditions. The "hands-on" experience encourages the students to explore the general conditions for the growth of plants and produce a best-in-show plant worthy of the first prize of lunch for two at an excellent local restaurant. This serves as a point of dormitory discussion and interest in growing plants. The continued growth of plants is further emphasized in the last lecture of the term. The class participates in planting of a class tree on the campus. The tree and a small plaque provide q lasting botanical memory through the alumni stage of development and adds to the botanical diversity of the landscape.

Academic accomplishment is further emphasized using an optional study guide which can be purchased in the college bookstore. This study aid contains a listing of terms, in approximate order of lecture appearance (student spelling is always a problem), an extensive sampling of test questions and copies of old exams round out the study aid. Clarity of academic expectations is the objective of these materials.

We have retained the laboratory experience as an important component. Severe budget restrictions have encouraged "innovative" approaches such as really good labs every other week or rationalizing that under-graduate laboratories should be deferred to the graduate

116

level. We use the laboratory as a teaching device to complement and supplement the material presented in the lectures. Laboratory exercises for even a moderate number (230) of students present numerous problems. We use a custom laboratory manual (W.C. Brown Publishing), which contains, in sequence, only those exercises which we have selected, and those laboratories are supplemented with an introductory field trip high-lighting our greenhouse collection of exotic plants and a tour of campus trees. We feel that organization is requisite for educational efficiency—all topics are discussed in lecture before the corresponding laboratory. This makes it a confirmational instead of a discovery experience, but the information is reinforced. Students can pursue discovery experiences in later courses if they choose. Lecture topics are also covered in the same sequence as the textbook, because to students, Security is a Warm Textbook. We also use a series of 2X2 slides to summarize each laboratory period. Each laboratory is coordinated by the faculty member in charge of the course, a lab supervisor and graduate teaching assistant. We have found that entering graduate students seldom have been exposed to the teaching side of instruction. As a result, we have developed an undergraduate volunteer teaching assistant program. These volunteers participate in the lab prep sessions, attend lectures and discussions and gain valuable experiences for the continuance of their studies at the graduate level.

We attempt to couple botany to environmental concerns and underline the importance of plants in all aspects of our lives. In response to this charge, we require that each student present a short current event related to botany during the laboratory period. This short respite serves to point out the involvement of plants in areas from basic research to practical applications.

We stress the importance of plants as organisms and encourage the students to recognize the importance of classification systems. In laboratory, each student must prepare an appropriately labeled herbarium specimen of a weedy species. This small project is associated with a brief instructional period and a tour of our herbarium. As an option, we frame (at student expense) the specimens if the students would like to further en-joy the beauties of nature and taxonomy.

Botany laboratory content is in a state of flux with a variety of approaches and philosophies in response to a burgeoning information explosion and the applications of educational technology. Our laboratory sessions are fairly classical, and so we are currently considering an autotutorial approach which provides a balance between standard root-shoot laboratories and experimental exercises. "Standard" lecture slides will be up-dated by the addition of video and movie clips using a video projection system.

The personality of the instructor is an important factor in developing an approach that is effective and fits the specific circumstances. The burn-out factor can be minimized by teaching the general botany course in alternate years. This allows a new course approach and provides students with a choice of instructors. Obviously, a number of approaches should be explored—I have outlined one approach to reach a common objective—botanical education. I hope that the William-and-Mary methods that I've outlined above will stimulate ideas from botany instructors at other institutions.

Martin C. Mathes

College of William and Mary

PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

needs a new Editor to begin with Volume 42 (January 1996).

Are you interested in desktop publishing?
Would you like to correspond with botanical colleagues in many
disciplines about books, articles and matters of interest to the BSA?
Are you looking for a meaningful way to serve your Society?
Need more information? If the answer to any of these questions is
yes, please communicate your interest to
the PSB Editor Search Committee.
(See "Positions Available" in this issue)

117

Gap Analysis Approaches to Mapping and Managing Biodiversity

Blair Csuti

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843

HUMANS DEPEND ON BIODIVERSITY (plant and animal spe-

cies and the functional ecosystems in which they participate) for food, medicines, shelter, and transportation. Both industrialized and developing countries have al-ready seen much of their biodiversity vanish. What remains is at risk, but ironically, most biodiversity is unnamed, unclassified, and unmapped. Among all the urgent needs of humankind, preventing the loss of biodiversity is paramount—a species lost is lost forever. Gap Analysis uses satellite remote sensing, geographic in-formation systems, and existing information about plant and animal ecology to rapidly and inexpensively pro-vide resource planners with a preliminary assessment of the distribution and status of biodiversity.

Gap Analysis was developed by the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units of the National Biological Survey in response to a need to consider more than endangered plant and animal species when developing a national strategy to prevent the loss of biodiversity. While it is important to prevent the loss of endangered species, Gap Analysis recognizes that rapid fragmentation and loss of habitat poses a threat to species and ecosystems that may appear secure today but will become tomorrow's endangered species in the absence of foresighted land use planning and management.

Gap Analysis provides a way to assess how well species and ecosystem types are represented in the current network of areas managed for the long-term maintenance of biodiversity. Beyond identifying and mapping the distribution of species and ecosystem types not represented in those areas, Gap Analysis can locate sets of areas that, if managed primarily for biodiversity, would most efficiently insure that most species and ecosystems were secure from future threats of extinction—avoiding what Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has called "national train wrecks."

Understanding the distribution of biodiversity (species and natural communities) is a prerequisite to developing a strategy to maintain it. What procedures are available for biologists and managers who want to make the most of the meager information available on the distribution of biodiversity at the species level? Early in this century, the great Western naturalist Joseph Grinnell observed that, "Because of the close dependence of

[More information about Gap Analysis can be

found in WILDLIFE MONOGRAPH 123: 1-41, January

1993.—Ed.]

most mammals and birds upon plants, the latter have an important place in any treatment of animal distribution." Combining information about the relationships between species and their habitats with large-scale vegetation maps can provide a useful guide to the distribution and management of many species in the context of the plant communities in which they occur.

Plants that are dominant or co-dominant in communities can be mapped using a variety of field survey or remote sensing techniques. On the other hand, understory plants, being firmly rooted in the soil, grow only where requirements for all their life stages are coincident. Populations of species tend to be patchy within a landscape. Their distribution is less determined by the plant community than it is by physical factors (soil, moisture, insolation). Because plant species distribution so often responds to local factors, there are far more plant species with restricted ranges (local endemics) than animal species. For example, there are about 62 endemic vertebrates in California (>10% out of avertebratc fauna of about 700 species), while 2125 of 4452 (48%) native plants are endemic to the California Floristic Province according to Drs. Peter Raven and Daniel Axelrod. The high degree of plant endemism makes it difficult to predict the distribution of individual species based on any relationship with plant communities that can be mapped using remote sensing. We may safely attribute a plant species to the creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) community of the Mojave Desert, but many plants found in that community will occur in only a portion of the area dominated by creosote bush scrub. The relationships between plants and plant communities are necessarily less specific than those between animals and their habitats.

Despite qualifications about the relationships between species and the categories of habitat types that humans describe, species-habitat relationships provide a first approximation of the fauna and flora of a particular stand of vegetation. The next step is to translate habitat preferences into maps that depict species distributions.

A good vegetation map is the foundation for an understanding of the distribution of biodiversity in general. Gap Analysis assumes that plant communities integrate many of the climatic and physical variables of an area in their species composition and structure. Gap Analysis applies two relatively new technologies to

continued p. 120

118

Gaps in GAP

Christopher P. Dunn

BSA Conservation Committee
The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532

THE WORLDWIDE toss OF sl'ncmS has reached such proportions, and is continuing at such a rate, that new measures to preserve the world's biological diversity must be implemented. The broad concern about loss of species can be gauged in part by terms such as "biodiversity" and "conservation biology" creeping into the common lexicon. Furthermore, federal agencies, including the Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Interior, arc attempting to find efficient ways to take stock of our nation's natural heritage and to decide on appropriate ways to preserve it.

Biological diversity (or biodivcrsity) is not a simple concept and it can be defined at any of three ecological levels. Typically, biodiversity is used synonymously with species richness. The extinction of any species reduces biodiversity. But this concept of species richness is actually an intermediate one between genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. Very few species are comprised of genetically identical individuals. Within any population of spring beauties, sugar maples, or song sparrows, there will be sufficient genetic differences among individuals that the genetic diversity of each population can he quantified. This within-population genetic diversity is assumed to confer a number of ecological and evolutionary benefits. In the face of predictable or unpredictable environmental pressures, the chances of survival by some members of the population are increased compared with populations with genetic uniformity. For example, if all lodgepole pines had genes for thin bark, it is likely that few would survive a major fire. The fact that some mature individuals have thick bark virtually assures that some individuals will survive a fire and that successive generations will have higher proportion of individuals with genes for thick hark. Genetic diversity will be maintained by a number of factors, including gene flow (e.g., pollen or seed dispersal).

The other component of biodiversity is ecosystem diversity; that is, the variety of natural ecological systems (terrestrial, aquatic, marine) found in a given region. Loss of an ecosystem, or a major portion of one, will result in the simultaneous loss of the other components of biodiversity. Clearing a mature stand of north-

(More reading: Gap analysis: another look. PARK

SCIENCE 14(3): 24-25,1994, and Landscape Linkages

and Biodiversity (Introduction) pp. 3-13, Island Press, 1993.—Ed.]

ern hardwood forest will take with it the attendant species diversity and genetic diversity of that system.

Given this definition of biodivcrsity, it is hardly surprising that ecologists, environmentalists, natural resource managers, and policy makers regard the larger-scale ecosystem to be most relevant in discussions of biodiversity preservation and management. If entire ecological systems can he preserved, then by default species diversity and genetic diversity are also preserved. By focusing on this level, concerns about managing individual rare or threatened species are lessened. By saving the system, threats to single species are lessened, thereby avoiding Secretary Babbitt's "national train wrecks."

This ecosystem and regional view has considerable merit; however, it also has several conceptual and practical problems. The "top-down"ecosystem approachhas some appeal, but what if changes or management is taking place at the population level? How will overt changes with genetic consequences "trickle up" to be detectable or measurable ecosystem changes? Part of the problem is defining "threats," both present and future. As my colleagues and I have shown, genetic diversity of sugar maple in southern Wisconsin can be reduced in a typical agricultural landscape. No one would argue that sugar maple is threatened nor that mesic woodlands are threatened. However, if fragmentation, cutting, grazing, and other uses continue, loss of rare alleles will not be detected by a regional biodivcrsity assessment. In fact, in those woodlots that are most isolated and most intensively used (especially grazed), rare alleles are lacking. It is only in those woodlots that are sufficiently large, unmanaged, and close to other woodlots that the genetic diversity of sugar maple is preserved.

Thus, how would a "top-down" approach benefit policy-makers, landowners or natural resource managers? It probably would not. There is no single answer to inventory and preservation of biodiversity in all its manifestations. Clearly, threats to biodiversity are largely a result of human modifications of the landscape and those impacts can he measured at each of the three levels of biodiversity. For decades, such discussion has centered on the species level, an approach that has been legally mandated in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A changed emphasis, centered on ecosystems and regions, should be carefully planned so that it is not perceived as being an alternative to a single species approach. Reauthorization of the ESA will be debated in

continued p. 121

119

GAP, continued from p. 118...

natural resource planning: geographic information systems (GIS) and satellite remote sensing to map plant communities and predict species distributions.

Of the several types of satellite imagery available, Gap Analysis programs use LANDSAT Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery, which records reflected radiation from 30 x 30 m areas at seven wave-lengths. One limitation of satellite re-mote sensing is its inability to resolve micro-habitats that may have consider-able importance to many species. For example, dippers (Cinclus mexicanus) are found in swift-flowing forest streams which cannot be distinguished from surrounding forests in satellite imagery. This is a problem of cartographic generalization that is addressed by recognizing the

assumptions of small scale mapping. Since we are map-ping landscapes that usually cover several thousand acres, we assume that micro-habitat features, such as small streams, will occur as an element somewhere within that landscape — we just can't say exactly where.

Most distribution maps start with the locations of specimens in systematic collections. Although a species may have been documented in hundreds of localities, there are often large expanses between localities where it is merely assumed that the species is present in appropriate habitat. Gap Analysis draws on the museum or herbarium specimen localities to set the distributional limits for a species; it then uses a relatively large-scale vegetation map (1:100,000 to 1:250,000) to predict the species that should be present within stands of appropriate habitats. Gap Analysis has adopted the PLANTS data base, developed by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, as its standard for plant taxonomy and nomenclature.

Known localities, rather than predicted distributions, will be used for special interest species (state or federally listed as endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidates for such listing). These localities are usually are avail-able from state Natural Heritage Programs. Gap Analysis programs will use these rare plant localities in the selection of priority areas. Oregon has incorporated tree species distributions into its biodiversity data set, and a pilot program in Utah addressed the relationship between the distribution of a sample of understory species and satellite-based vegetation maps.

Since one of our goals is to identify areas rich in species diversity, we overlay the distribution maps of many species to create maps of species richness, defined as the total number of species of a taxonomic unit present in an area. Areas of equal size can differ significantly in species richness, depending on the number of habitats they include. Areas that span the elevational gradient of

an ecoregion will often contain the complete spectrum of habitats and species in that region and are therefore have especially high priority for maintaining biodiversity.

Gap Analysis draws on iterative methods of identifying priority areas for maintaining biodiversity that have been developed in Australia. For example, if a region is subdivided into sample units, then a simple algorithm can select the unit that contains the greatest number of species or vegetation types, then the unit that contains the greatest number of species or vegetation types not present in the first unit, and so on, until all species are represented a certain number of times (once, twice, three times, etc.). Gap Analysis results will incorporate the three principles of selecting priority areas, complementarity, flexibility, and irreplaceability, identified by Dr. Robert L. Pressey of the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and his colleagues. Within any state or region, areas representing most diverse (complementary) assemblages of species will be identified, recognizing that we can usually present planners with many options for representing those species in a reserve network (flexibility). Some species only occur in one area, which is then irreplaceable in any set of recommended biodiversity management areas.

While the technologies used in Gap Analysis are widely available, the conceptual framework, methods, and computer software (for example, addressing the difficult task of converting raster satellite imagery into vegetation polygons) developed by its researchers standardize and streamline the process of biodiversity inventory. We believe the Gap Analysis approach to conservation planning will prove useful to both conservation and management professionals as well as forming the spatial frame of reference for information storage and retrieval from a continually evolving National Biological Survey.

120

Gaps, continued from p. 119...

the next Congress and any assurances (perceived or real) that an ecosystem or regional view is apanacea or a more enlightened approach could be grist for the mill of ESA opponents. Preservation of biodiversity is a troika. The dynamic dance of ecological processes involves three equal participants. Focus on only one, or elimination of one, and (to paraphrase Yeats) the center will not hold.

To assess threats to biodiversity, the National Biological Survey proposes GAP (Gap Analysis Project), which uses overlays of maps of 1) species distributions, 2) vegetation maps, and 3) ownership. These maps are used to identify species richness "hot spots" and areas that need protection (gaps). As any student of human-dominated landscapes can testify, species richness is no measure of ecological value. Many woodlots in fragmented landscapes are rich in species because of the combination of native and exotic species and so-called edge effects. High species richness is more likely a measure of human activity than of ecological value. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis suggests that for tropical systems, lowest species richness will be found in undisturbed (dominated by native species) and very disturbed (dominated by exotic or weedy species) ends of a disturbance gradient. Forest stands with intermediate levels of disturbance will harbor a mix of native and exotic species and will thus have highest species richness.

A second problem is that Gap Analysis will have limited applicability in areas that are highly fragmented (much of the central US) or are highly managed (e.g., large tracts of privately owned timberland). In highly fragmented regions, the predominant land use is agriculture or some other human-modified system. The scale at which vegetation is mapped (1:500,000 in Idaho) will minimize the importance of habitat patches in these landscapes. This issue of scale is relevant to conflicts between the spatial scale of vegetation mapping and the scale at which animals respond to vegetation. Gap Analysis assumes (a term used at least twice in Csuti's companion piece) an explicit relationship between habitat types (i.e., vegetation) and distributions of particular species.

Third, there is no assurance that biodiversity (how-ever it is defined) will be assessed at periodic intervals, as is proposed for the EPA's EMAP program. Maps of vegetation and animal distributions will be a snapshot and will not capture the dynamics of ecological systems nor of populations. In intensively managed regions, this successional problem will be especially pronounced.

Finally, the political problems are rarely mentioned

in the Gap Analysis literature. Many private landowners

will be suspicious of an effort they perceive as entailing

government intervention, particularly if their land is

identified as part of a "gap." Thirty percent of the US is

federally owned, with 95% of this ownership occurring

in the western US and Alaska. Implementing Gap Anal-

ysis in those regions dominated by private and corporate land ownership could be daunting. A second problem with Gap Analysis is that the range maps will be based in large part on systematic collections, many of which are out-dated, especially with respect to locations of rare species.

I do not believe that Gap Analysis should be abandoned, but that it should be promoted only as one component of a larger biodiversity assessment and management strategy. By attempting to identify high priority conservation areas, the NBS is to be complemented; how-ever, by using Gap Analysis alone, much of the ecological knowledge we have about species and communities is ignored. There seem to be enough gaps in the GAP approach to temper the optimism of its proponents and to require biologists and managers to explicitly consider all three components of biodiversity during assessments of our nation's natural heritage.

121

Announcements

Botany recognized in popular culture

There is a botanist who is a regular character on Star Trek:Deep Space Nine. In a recent episode, she was growing bored because the school that she taught for the children of the space station had been closed. Her dissatisfaction was affecting the quality of her relation-ship with her husband, the station's chief engineer. The husband tried a fine meal and special attention; he even planned a conservatory. Then the medico of the series advised him that what the botanist really needed was to pursue botany. So, she is not currently appearing on the show because she is off on a plant exploration trip on a planetary surface. Hubby and child visit occasionally—it's only 3.5 hours away by warp power.—Herman S. Forest, Emeritus, Geneseo

Call for Nomination: Darbaker Prize

The Botanical Society of America is accepting nominations for the Darbaker Prize in Phycology. This award is presented for meritorious work in the study of microscopical algae. The Darbaker Award Committee will base its judgment primarily on papers published by the nominee during the last two full calendar years (1993-94). The award is limited to residents of North America and only papers published in the English language will be considered. A monetary prize is presented to the recipient at the BSA society banquet during the annual meeting. Nominations for the 1995 award should include all reprints of the nominee's work that are to be considered for the 1993-94 period and a statement of the nominee's merits addressed to the committee. The materials must be received no later than April 1, 1995. Please send nomination materials to: Joby M. Chesnick, Chair, Darbaker Committee, Department of Biology, Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042 (FAX:610/250-6557)

Persona/la

David Lloyd Recovering,

Appreciates Taped Communication

In December of 1992, David Lloyd suffered a severe injury by acrylamide poisoning from an unknown source. He was in a coma for over three months and since then has been gradually recovering. He is now in the rehabilitation unit of Burwood Hospital at Christchurch, New Zealand. The injury resulted in severe nerve damage of a very unusual and complicated nature with an unknown prognosis. He has been blind since he regained consciousness. It is not known if his vision will return. He has been paralyzed from the neck down but has regained feeling in his arms and hands and we are hoping he will eventually regain movement as well. He is still not able to feel his legs but his reflex movements have returned and we hope the feeling and movement will ultimately return as well. He has tracheotomy tube for breathing because of a tracheal narrowing. The breathing difficulties will require some type of repair work on his trachea to remove the scar tissue caused by the ventilator that was used when he was in intensive care during the coma. He also has a gastric tube for feeding because of swallowing difficulties. However, his ability to swallow is improving tremendously with practice so we are confident that the gastric tube will not be necessary for much longer.

David's spirits are good under the circumstances. He is mentally alert and determined to make a good recovery. He has little sensory input: visual—none, tactile—little, olfactory and taste—not up to normal as yet, but his hearing is fully normal. Thus, he has many difficulties to overcome to regain a fully productive life. He is well taken care of in an excellent rehabilitation unit with an outstanding medical staff, and he is supported by family and friends. The road to full recovery is a long and slow one but his progress is constant and steady. He would be very happy to hear from his colleagues. He would appreciate receiving audio tapes of letters and of good talks about reproductive biology and evolutionary theory as well as relevant reprints or books that pertain to his field of interest. A group of graduate students from his department are reading to him every day. He has been immensely enjoying the papers and the more readable books. We are confident that he is going to make a very high level of recovery since he has beaten all the odds so far, and is deter-mined to continue to do so.

You can mail tapes to David at Ward 9, Burwood Hospital, Private Bag 4708, Christchurch, New Zealand.—Linda Newstrom-Lloyd

In Memoriam

D. G. Catcheside

Corresponding Member of the Society, died 1 June 1994.

John R. Laughnan

who had been a member of the Society since 1953, passed away 15 July 1994.

Askell Lave

died 29 May 1994. A memorial note will appear in TAXON.

122

Ove Arbo Hoeg

Ove Arbo Hoeg was born in 1898 in Larvik (SE Norway) into a prominent family of that region, and he maintained his pleasantly aristocratic bearings during a long and active life, exhibiting wide interests and knowledge in botany.

Hoeg started as a lichenologist, student of Bernt Lynge's, one of the classic authors in Norwegian lichenology, Hoeg's theses (1923) dealt with a group of corticolous lichens. However, lichenology never became a major interest, even if he published lichenological notes off and on until 1941. His next approach came in plant geography, a study of the enigmatic distribution pattern of beech in Norway (1924). The study is especially noteworthy for the use of pollen analysis to elucidate the immigration. Being first published in 1918 pollen analysis was just starting to be known outside Scandinavia and Hogs special approach in that pa-per was not generally recognized until much later. However, while he continued phytogeographical studies he did not goon in pollen analysis. Hoeg instigated dendrochronological research in Norway but did not pursue it actively, leaving the (not too fertile) field to younger people.

In 1929 came the first paper from the field with which Hoeg was most closely related and which was the main basis for his international reputation; Palaeobotony. It was a second-hand study of techniques. His two large papers on the Downtonian of Spitsbergen

and the Glossopteris flora of (the then) Belgian Congo were published in 1942 and 1960. Smaller papers in this field continued to pour from his pen until 1981.

Hoeg's international reputation in palaeobotany caused him to be asked to take over the directorship of the Sahni Institute in Lucknow (India) after the untimely death of Birbal Sahni. It was a task that demanded great tact and the diplomacy that characterized Ove Hoeg. Even so, I understand from guarded remarks that life in Lucknow was not always easy. However, he managed to maintain the institute at ahigh level of excellence and had anumber of Indian palaeobotanists as colleagues and students.

Back from India, Hoeg continued his palaeobotanical work in Oslo. His two positions in Norway were the directorship of the botanical museum in Trondheim and later the chair of botany at the school of pharmnacy at the School of Pharmacy, University of Oslo.

In the meantime, Hoeg had developed a new field of investigation. His interest in botanical folklore goes back to a small paper he wrote in 1938. Very characteristic for Hoeg, he expanded in this field as a protest against what he considered misbehavior. Another person (an MD) had

continued p. 124 Suzanne Leclercq

The Botanical Society of America has lost one of its luminaries, Corresponding Member Suzanne Leclercq, who was for many years head of the Laboratoire de Paldontologie Vdgetale at the University of Liege, Belgium. Dr. Leclercq was an outstanding paleobotanist whose impact on the field is still guiding the study of plant fossils.

Suzanne's early work included a comprehensive ac-count of the anatomy of coal balls from the Westphalian Bouxharmont seam in Belgium. Outstanding during this period was her classic reconstruction of the sporangial complex of Sphenophyllum fertile using the then new peel technique to obtain serial sections. She was able, with extraordinary care and patience, to interpret both anatomy and morphology of this highly complex fructification. More significant, her work has stood the test of time. But it was her painstaking search for evidence upon which to base the reconstruction that we emphasize here. There are many good interpretations of fossil plants but too few that have been proven so convincingly as this was.

In 1940 Suzanne turned to the study of Devonian plants. She quickly recognized that a fossil plant consists of part and counterpart, not one of these alone. This led her to the obvious but neglected truth that the three-dimensional character of the living plant lies buried in the rock matrix. However,

only a Suzanne Leclercq could have developed the art of removal of the surrounding matrix grain by grain using steel needles and a light hammer under a stereoscopic binocular microscope. When complete, the impossible has been accomplished to the point where both evidence for and proof of her interpretation are incontrovertible. Following Suzanne, "ddgagement" has become standard procedure, but few are able to equal her skill.

In the early fifties she successfully introduced the use of plastic as an embedding substance in the study of pyritized or limonitic permineralizations. Her study of the tiny Upper Devonian fructification Eviostachya is a superb example of her skill as she demonstrated eleven whorls of sporangiophores spaced 2–3 mm apart. Each whorl consisted of 6 sporangiophores given off in pairs. Each sporangiophore divided into three segments that divided in turn into three lesser segments each of which bore three terminal, recurved sporangia (27 per sporangiophore). She went on to apply these methods to other monographic studies such as Rhacophyton in 1951, and, in collaboration with colleagues, to several other genera. Specifically, she studied Calamophyton with Andrews

continued p. 124

123

Hoeg, continued from p. 121

for half a lifetime received a government subvention for collecting Norwegian plant-lore and especially plant names. He did nothing of that, but instead engaged in a lively political activity in the fields of language reform and teetotalism (Hoeg did not like either). Resenting this and realizing that there was not much time to lose if anything should be saved in these fields, Hoeg started collecting plant lore in earnest, simply starting to do the work the other person should have done.

He traveled up and down the country, originally in connection with other studies, later expressly for this purpose. The result came in 1974: "Planter og tradisjon" (Plants and tradition), 751 pages. It is an inexhaustible mine of information of traditions which have become obsolete in the post World War II period and would have been lost but for his work. The history of the book is tragicomic. Evidently the publisher did not expect much from it and produced an edition of 1500 copies. they were sold in less than a month. The publisher rubbed his eyes and ventured another 1500. They vanished equally fast. Only after the third attempt the publisher understood the situation and came out with 5000 copies (which are also sold out long ago together with two abridged versions with the "learned" footnotes, etc., apparatus) For a book of this type and a country of only 4 million people it is quite an achievement.

After this initial success Hoeg continued taking up more specialized themes ending up (1991) with a charming book about children playing with wild plants.

Such a list of achievements should suffice for a full life. No so for Hoeg. His little textbook on scientific publishing came in two editions, and there were other popular books as well plus small papers and notes on topics from the wide fields of his interests. Ove Arbo Hoeg was a good botanist, but even more, he was a fine man.—Knut Faegri

Leclerc@, continued from p. 121

(1960) and Schweitzer (1965), Pseudosporochnus with Banks (1962) and Lele (1968), Rellimia with Boname (1971) and Psilophyton dawsonii with Banks and Hueber (1975). In all of these works her insistence on careful study and on proof of any assertions characterized the resulting publications.

Suzanne had the distinction of being one of the first women to earn an academic position in Belgium. She was made Commandeur de I'Ordre de la Couronne and Grand Officer de 1'Ordre de Leopold II, among other distinctions. She was President of the Geological Society of Belgium in 1935. In 1965 she was made a Corresponding Member of the Belgian Royal Academy and in 1975 she was elected as one of the 15 members of its Classe des Sciences.

Those of us who have collaborated with and/or studied under Suzanne will never forget the invaluable lessons she taught us.—Harlan P. Banks, Muriel Fairon-Demaret

Educational Opportunities

Managing the Modern Herbarium

5-6 Jun 1995

The Education and Training Committee of the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC) is offering a discipline-specific workshop entitled "Managing the Modem Herbarium" June 5 and 6, 1995, in Toronto. The workshop will immediately follow the SPNHC 10th anniversary annual conference, which is being held at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 3-4, 1995. This work-shop is designed for all those concerned with the maintenance of botanical or mycological collections. Through instruction, focused discussion, hands-on participation, and publication, the program will strive to: - promote dialogue on conservation and collection

management issues,solutions and resources;

- establish a discipline consensus on policies and pro-

cedures for the uses of collections in molecular

research, with emphasis on extant collections and

the making of new collections;

- exhibit and demonstrate a range of specimen preparation and field techniques;

- facilitate communication among institutions and professional societies.

A preliminary list of topics includes: adhesives, bar-coding, care of botanical prints and illustrations, collecting techniques, cryo-preservation, destructive sampling, papers, pest management, specimen preparation, storage... Reserve these dates, and look for a detailed announcement in your society newsletters in the fall. For input, or for more information contact: Deborah Metsger, Department of Botany, Royal Ontario Museum , 100 Queen's Park , Toronto, Ontario , Canada MSS 2C6 (email:

DMETSGER@BOTANY.UTORONTO.CA fax: (416) 586-5516).   ,

124

Funding Opportunities

Collaborative Research in Plant Biology Tri-Agency Program

To strengthen fundamental plant science knowledge that will serve as the basis for improving the use of plants in products and processes that fit society's needs, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have selected this year's grant awardees in the DOE/NSF/USDA Joint Program on Collaborative Research in Plant Biology.

NSF/s Directorate for Biological Sciences, DOE's Office of Energy Research and USDA's National Re-search Initiative Competitive Grants Program support a majority of the basic plant biology research at academic institutions in the United States.

The tri-agency collaborative Research in Plant Biology Program (CRPB) is designed to provide funding for plant biologists through multi-institutional research coordinating group awards, and interdisciplinary re-search training group awards. Multi-institutional re-search coordinating group awards support groups of investigators with common interests who coordinate their research efforts across institutional or geographic boundaries. Interdisciplinary research training group awards assure the continued availability of individual plant scientists capable of performing interdisciplinary and creative research.

The three agencies jointly administer the program from the initial phase, and continue to administer the awards until their termination. Each award is funded solely by a single agency for administrative efficiency. However, representatives from the three agencies act as co-project officers for all CRPB awards and jointly monitor their progress.

Plant Biology Fellowships/Traineeships Washington State University

The DOE/NSF/USDA Triagency Program on Collaborative Research in Plant Biology is sponsoring a new five year training grant at Washington State University. The WSU Plant Biochemistry Center was developed to provide training in plant biochemistry and regulatory processes. This program includes thirteen faculty members (G. An, J. Browse, R. Croteau, G.E. Edwards, J.N.S. Evans, V.R. Franceschi, N.G. Lewis, M.L. Kahn, F.A. Loewus, T.W. Okita, C.A. Ryan, L.P. Taylor, M.K Walker-Simmons) from six different units: Institute of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry/Biophysics, Botany, Genetics and Cell Biology, Crop and Soil Sciences, and Horticulture. The purpose of the program is to provide undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral associates with a comprehensive and multidisciplinary education in plant biochemistry, including interdisciplinary research activities between physical/biochemical sciences and the traditional plant sciences. Unique opportunities exist in the program for a combination of formal course offer-

ings, interdisciplinary mentoring, a comprehensive seminar series, industry internships and a scientific retreat. Positions are available for both graduate students (6) and post-doctoral fellows (4) on a competitive basis. Fellowship recipients must be citizens or permanent residents of the U.S. For more information contact Ms. Tomie Burke, WSU Plant Biochemistry Coordinator, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164-6340 (FAX 509/ 335-7643, telephone 509/335-1958; e-mail

burtkeskm@ w suv m l .csc. wsu.edu).

Bullard Fellowships in Forest Research Harvard University

Each year Harvard University awards a Iimited number of Bullard Fellowships to individuals in biological, social, physical and political sciences to promote advanced study, research or integration of subjects pertaining to forested ecosystems. The fellowships, which include stipends up to $30,000, are intended to provide individuals in mid-career with an opportunity to utilize the resources and to interact with personnel in any department within Harvard University in order to develop their own scientific and professional growth. In recent years Bullard Fellows have been associated with the Harvard Forest, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Kennedy School of Government and have worked in areas of ecology, forest management, policy and conservation. Fellowships are avail-able for periods ranging from four months to one year and can begin at any time in the year. Applications from international scientists, women and minorities arc encouraged. Fellowships arc not intended for graduate students or recent post-doctoral candidates. Further information may be obtained from: Committee on the Charles Bullard Fund for Forest Research, Harvard University, Harvard Forest, Petersham MA 01366 USA. Annual deadline for applications is February 1.

Graduate Research Assistantship University of Rhode Island

Beginning September 1995, possibly earlier, we have a research assistantship available for a highly qualified M.S. or Ph.D. student with major interest in the taxonomy of marine plankton diatoms. The funds are available for a minimum of two years, with possible continued funding in the case of a Ph.D. student. Applicants should have a career goal of phytoplankton biodiversity studies with emphasis on diatom taxonomy or life history studies. Qualified applicants can be accepted at the University of Rhode Island through the Graduate School of Oceanography or the newly formed (from Botany and Zoology) Department of Biological Sciences. Entrance and curricular requirements for GSO and DBS differ somewhat. Details on application to Graduate School can be obtained from the Graduate Admissions Office, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0809 (tel. 401-792-2872), or from the Academic Affairs Office, GSO/URI, Narraga