ISSN 1188-603X

No. 357 February 16, 2006 Victoria, B.C.
Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2


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

The workshop will be conducted by Dr. Lubomir Tichy, Department of Botany, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Description: This three-day course will combine lectures with hands-on application to teach the basic concepts and advanced features of the JUICE 6.3 freeware, computing package based on the Microsoft WINDOWS platform. The workshop will include:

  1. Databases as Important Sources of Ecological Information - Differences between Small and Large Data Sets.
  2. The Basics of Working with Vegetation Tables.
  3. Available Classifications, Ordinations and other Analyses.
  4. Synoptic Tables, the Fidelity Concept, Similarity Indices, Beta-Diversity etc.
  5. Parameterization of Species and Vegetation Units with Using Environmental Variables.
  6. Finalization of Results for Publication.
  7. Published Sample Data (e. g. non-forest vegetation classification of the Czech Republic - ca. 20.000 records; a vegetation data set combined with mollusk data - about 150 records; a large data set with measured environmental variables - about 500 records).

The workshop will be held at Alaska Pacific University and be limited to 10 participants. Cost of workshop: $200 (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 L. A. Piper, Environmental Science Office @ (907) 564-8207; FAX (907) 562- 4276; email: . 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 (; a JUICE Manual will be available for distribution two weeks prior to the workshop. 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:


From: B.A. Bennett, NatureServe, Yukon

Yukon Draba or Yukon Whitlow-grass (Draba yukonensis Porsild) has more common names than populations. It is only known from a single site in the vicinity of Haines Junction outside of Kluane National Park. It was first collected in 1944 by Hugh M. Raupand his wife L.G. Raup. In 1957 it was collected again by Dr. Wilf Schofield and H.A. Crum from just outside their tents while camping near the Alaska Highway.

This was likely the same site as where Raup had collected it 13 years earlier. At that time the collection was called Draba oligosperma, a species which still grows in abundance in the area. It wasn't until 1975 that the species Draba yukonensis was recognized and its description was published by Alf Erling Porsild, based on the collection made by Dr. Schofield. That is all that was known about the species until 2005.

In 2000 a very enthusiastic amateur botanist from New York City decided to come to the southwest Yukon and volunteer to look for plants on behalf of Kluane National Park & Preserve. With the knowledge of the approximate location and a short description of the way to separate this species from 28 other species of Draba in the area, Phil Caswell began searching. His search came up fruitless, but he did discover that arctic ground squirrels feed on the seed heads of Draba, often consuming the entire above ground portion of the plant. Phil's search raised the interest of locals and park staff alike. But still no plants were found. Each year 100's of Draba collections were examined from the area. Many new locales of other globally rare Draba species such a Draba scotteri, Draba ventosa and Draba porsildii were found but Draba yukonensis remained elusive.

In the fall of 2004, Draba yukonensis was listed as Globally Historic (GH); the only species with this designation at that time in Canada. This is one step away from being declared extinct. It was felt that after four years of searching and 47 years with no new collections, the population type locality must have been lost; still there was hope that somewhere a new population of this distinctive species would be found. In the spring of 2005, Wilf Schofield provided precise directions to his original collection site, which despite being near to the Alaska Highway had not altered much in the subsequent 48 years. Just as these new instructions were being emailed to the Parks office, Phil and longtime park warden Lloyd Freese were on the search for the elusive endemic Draba. Phil was showing Lloyd its closest look alike, Draba cana, when Lloyd showed Phil some freshly collected plants. To their great surprise they had rediscovered the secret stand of Draba yukonensis, in the same location that it had been found by others half a century before.

At that time 18 plants were counted in two small populations, not counting the 3 that had been inadvertently collected. However 4 days later only 13 plants could be found. It was thought that perhaps some had been overlooked on the second count as they are difficult to see and the vegetation had advanced over the long days of the Yukon summer. By early June the plants had gone to seed but by now only 8 plants could be found. Photographs were taken of all the individuals to capture some of their individual characteristics.

Arrangements were made to attempt to collect the maturing seed and propagate them in the greenhouse of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. There was some concern that if these plants were indeed the last of their kind, and the original description that referred to them as biennials was correct, collecting the seed could further jeopardize the population. However, when the plants were surveyed again in late June to look for mature seed it was discovered that all the plants had now disappeared. They had likely become forage for the arctic ground squirrel.

In the fall of 2005, Dr. G.A. Mulligan with the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food in Ottawa was reviewing collections at the National herbarium (DAO). He discovered a fourth collection made by G.W. & G.G.Douglas, in June 27th, 1973. Two specimens of Draba yukonensis were mixed with nine specimens of Draba cana; once again apparently from the type locality. It remains to be seen whether the species has survived. Further attempts to find individuals will be made in the spring of 2006.

Sadly, soon after confirming the identity of his long sought quarry, Phil Caswell passed away on November 12, 2005. He will be sorely missed by his friends and colleagues, especially those who had the pleasure to work with him over the last 20 years in Yukon and Alaska.


From: Paul M. Catling(1), Brendon M. H. Larson(2), and Gerry Waldron(3)
(1) Biodiversity, National Program on Environmental Health, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Wm. Saunders Bldg., Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6 [ ];
(2) Center for Population Biology, 2310 Storer Hall, University of California, Davis, California, USA 95616
(3) 7641 County Road 20, R. R. #1, Amherstburg, Ontario, Canada N9V 2Y7

Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica Thunb. ex Murray) was not reported for Ontario by either Soper and Heimburger (1982) or Morton and Venn (1989), nor for Canada by Scoggan (1979). This is not surprising since the earliest mention is that of Maycock et al. in 1976 in an unpublished report. The earliest collections of plants evidently established on their own in a natural setting were the collection of C. A. Campbell in 1974 near Scudder on Pelee Island in Essex County (CAN), followed by the collection of Reznicek et al. in 1976 from Point Pelee in Essex County (the basis for Maycock's report, specimen at CAN) followed by the collection of M.J. Oldham on Cedar Creek in Essex County in 1981 (TRTE). Since the shrubs of the Carolinian zone were relatively well studied (e.g. Soper and Heimburger 1982), there is reason to believe that it established in the natural environment of Ontario only recently during the 1970s and 1980s. By the early 1990s it had been found in several locations in Essex county and near London in Middlesex County (MICH, TRTE), Port Bruce Provincial Park in Elgin County (Oldham et al. 1993, UWO), and in Kent County (MICH). The first collection from the eastern Lake Erie region was from Fort Erie in 2000 (DAO). The first published literature report for Ontario was that of Botham (1981), with more recent published literature reports including those of Oldham et al. (1993), Catling (1997) and Newmaster et al. (1998). Although present and well-known in Ontario by1996, it was not enough of a problem to be included by respondents to the national survey of invasive plants (Haber 1996) and it was not evaluated for the prioritized list of invasive alien plants of natural habitats in Canada (Catling 2005). However, based on current knowledge Japanese honeysuckle is clearly worthy of evaluation. Thus the elaborate and detailed invasive species assessment protocol (Morse et al. 2004), which was used to generate Canada's list, was applied to it. Japanese honeysuckle was found to be the fifty-third most significant invasive alien of natural habitats in Canada (Catling 2005).

The invasive species assessment protocol developed by Morse et al. ( 2004) includes 20 questions grouped into four sections: Ecological impact (1), Current Distribution and Abundance (2), Trend in Distribution and Abundance (3), and Management Difficulty (4). Based on numerical scores a subrank is calculated for each section. An overall I-rank indicating impact on native biodiversity in the region of interest is then calculated from the subranks.

With regard to Section 1, since Japanese honeysuckle has only recently established, impact is limited and scores for various factors are in the moderate to low range. Notable aspects are influence on light availability and tendency to overtop native vegetation. Since it occurs in parks and protected areas containing significant biodiversity, the threat is substantial but impact on native species in Canada needs to be quantified.

Section 2 of the evaluation assesses current distribution and abundance in the region. Since Japanese honeysuckle occurs only in a small part of southern Canada within a single ecoregion and its impacts occur over a small part of the current Canadian range, the score for this section is low.

Section 3 evaluates trend and here Japanese honesuckle is highly significant. High scores in this section indicate species with a major potential to spread further and to cause greater damage. The range of Japanese honeysuckle is expanding. Although it is essentially confined in Canada to the Carolinian zone, a restricted region of extreme southern Ontario, the plant hardiness zone (5b) that it occurs in extends throughout much of Nova Scotia and into southern British Columbia. Consequently, less than 10 per cent of its potential Canadian range is occupied. Expansion into this range could occur through dispersal by birds and people, which is likely effective over long distances. Finally, a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could allow Japanese honeysuckle to spread up to 400 km northward and to be an even more serious competitor as a result of increased growth rate (Sasek and Strain 1990, 1991).

The final section of the evaluation considers management difficulty and here Japanese honeysuckle has a low to moderate significance. Since it is semi-evergreen it can be readily located in late fall and early winter for control applications, but it does resprout readily after cutting.

In a case like this where an invasive plant scores very high in trend and relatively low in management difficulty, it is suggested that it can benefit from early detection and quick action aimed at control or eradication. For more information on Japanese honeysuckle see Nuzzo (1997) and Larson et al. (2006).


Botham, W. 1981.
Plants of Essex County - a preliminary list. Essex Region Conservation Authority. 124 p.
Catling, P.M. 1997.
The problem of invading alien trees and shrubs: some observations in Ontario and a Canadian Checklist. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111: 338-342.
Catling, P.M. and G. Mitrow. 2005.
A prioritized list of the invasive alien plants of natural habitats in Canada. Can. Bot. Assoc. Bull. 38(4): 55-57.
Haber, E. 1996.
Invasive plants of Canada: 1996 national survey results. Biodiversity Convention Office.
Larson, B.M.H., P.M. Catling and G. Waldron. 2006.
Biology of Canadian Weeds. Lonicera japonica. Can. J. Pl. Sci. (in prep.).
Maycock, P.F., Reznicek, A.A., and Gregory, D.R. 1976.
Point Pelee dryland vegetation resource analysis. Unpublished report, Parks Canada.
Morse, L. E., J. M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert and S. Lu. 2004.
An invasive species assessment protocol - evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Morton, J.K. and J.M. Venn. 1989.
A synonymized checklist of the flora of Ontario- vascular plants. Dept. of Biology, University of Waterloo.
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray, and M.J. Oldham. 1998.
Ontario plant list. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario), Forest Research Information Paper 123.
Nuzzo, V. 1997.
Element stewardship abstract for Lonicera japonica. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
Oldham, M.J., W.G. Stewart, and D. McLeod. 1993.
Additions to "A Guide to the Flora of Elgin County, Ontario" for 1992. The Cardinal 151:18-20.
Sasek, T. W. and Strain, B. R. 1990.
Implications of atmospheric CO2 enrichment and climatic change for the geographical distribution of two introduced vines in the U.S.A. Clim. Change 16: 31-51.
Sasek, T. W. and Strain, B. R. 1991.
Effects of CO2 enrichment on the growth and morphology of a native and an introduced honeysuckle vine. Am. J. Bot. 78: 69-75.
Scoggan, H.J. 1979.
The flora of Canada, part 4 - Dicotyledoneae (Loasaaceae to Compsitae). National Museum of Natural Sciences Publications in Botany No. 7(4): 1117-1711.
Soper, J. H. and M. L.Heimburger. 1982.
Shrubs of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum Publications in Life Sciences. 495 p.
Voss, E.G. 1996.
Michigan flora, part III, Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). University of Michigan Herbarium, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 622 p.

Send submissions to
BEN is archived at