Spring 1993 vol. 44, No. i

)

^ . ; ■" ■ > -V

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE '

THE VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

EDITOR/BUSINESS MANAGER:

James H. Martin

Dept, of Biology - PRC

J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College

P.O. Box 85622

Richmond, VA 23285-5622

Phone: (804)371-3064

©Copyright, 1993 by the Virginia Academy of Science. The Virginia Journal of
Science (ISSN:0042-658X) is published four times a year (Spring, Summer, Fall ,
Winter) by the Virginia Academy of Science, Department of Biology, University of
Richmond, Virginia 23173. The pages are electronically mastered in the Parham
Road Campus Biology Department of J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College.
The Virginia Academy of Science and the Editors of the Virginia Journal of Science
assume no responsibility for statements or opinions advanced by contributors.

Subscription rates for 1993: $27.00 per year, U.S.A.; $35.00 per year, other
countries. All foreign remittances must be made in U.S. doUars. Most back issues
are available. Prices vary from $5.00 to $25.00 per issue postpaid. Contact the
Business Manager for the price of a specific issue.

Changes of address, including both old and new zip codes, should be sent
promptly to the following address: Blanton M. Bruner, Executive Secretary-Trea¬
surer, Virginia Academy of Science, Department of Biology, University of Rich¬
mond, Virginia 23173. All correspondence relating to remittance, subscriptions,
missing issues and other business affairs should be addressed to the Business
Manager. - *

S'

For instructions to aphors, see inside of back cover
i " ^ - :: /

n •

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

VoL 44 No. 1 SPRING 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

ARTICLES

Comparative Studies of Small Mammal Populations with Tran¬
sects of Snap Traps and Pitfall Arrays in Southwest Vir^nia.
Elisabeth K V. Kalko and Charles O. Handle, Jr. 3

A Short History of Pitfall Trapping in America^ with a Review of
Methods Currently Used for Small Mammals. Charles O. Hand-
ley, Jr. and Elisabeth K V. Kalko. 19

The Center for Systematics Collections at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, (1973-1991). Michael Kosztarab. 27

Evaluation of Belgian Endive (Chicorium intybus) as an Alterna¬
tive Vegetable Crop, Tadesse Mehrahtu and Jimmy Mullins. 37

Status and distribution of Phenacobius teretulus, Etheostoma
osbumi, and '"Rhinichthys bowersP in the Monongahela National
Forest, West Virginia, Steve R. Chipps, William B. Perry and
Sue A. Perry. 47

Influence of Elaiosome Removal on Germination in Five Ant-
Dispersed Plant Species, Marion Blois Lobstein, and
Larry L. Rockwood. 59

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Virginia Journal of Science
Volume 44, Number 1
Spring 1993

Comparative Studies of Small Mammal Populations
with Transects of Snap Traps and Pitfall Arrays in
Southwest Virginia

Elisabeth K. V. Kalko and Charles O. Handley, Jr.

Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560.

ABSTRACT

In a long-term project at Mountain Lake in southwest Virginia we are
studying ecological preferences and population variations in small mam¬
mals. Using snap traps in transects we have accumulated large amounts of
data on rodents but httle on shrews. To enhance the capture success of
shrews and to compare various techniques for capturing small mammals, we
experimented with compact arrays of pitfall traps set parallel to om* standard
snap trap transects. Snap traps cau^t masked shrews in small numbers,
voles in moderate numbers, and white-footed and deer mice in great num¬
bers. Pitfalls on the other hand caught white-footed and deer mice in very
small numbers, jumping mice in moderate numbers, and masked shrews in
great numbers. We concluded from our results that the two trapping meth¬
ods are complementary, and we combined snap trap and pitfall captures in
a single analysis. To put the results of our pitfall trapping in perspective, we
also summarize capture data on small mammals from the continuing long¬
term snap trap study and from a short-term pitfall study. We describe
species-specific habitat preferences among the long-tailed shrews we sam¬
pled and consider the influence site moisture may have on habitat choice by
various shrews.

Key Words: pitfall, snap trap, small mammals, shrew, Virginia, ecology

INTRODUCTION

The Mountain Lake small mammal project, designed to determine ecological
preferences and long-term population variations in small mammals, has been in
progress since 1962. Using standard transects of snap traps, the study has accumu¬
lated a large amount of data on rodents, but relatively little on shrews.

A common plight of studies that use conventional traps such as snap traps to
sample populations of small mammals is the difficulty of capturing small shrews
(e.g., Sorex and Cryptotis). Data on distribution and abundance of these shrews
usually are not comparable with data for large shrews (Blarina) and rodents. Pitfalls
provide a solution to this trapping dilemma, but the extent of equivalence of capture
data from pitfalls and snap traps is an xmresolved problem.

In view of the growing hterature on various pitfall types and techniques and
another group of papers comparing capture rates of pitMs with a variety of other
traps, Kirkland and Sheppard (in press) recommended standardizing pitfall trap¬
ping techniques so that results of diverse studies will be comparable. They sug¬
gested a large array, about 25 m in diameter, as a standard. At the same time
Handley and Varn (in press) proposed much smaller pitfalls in compact arrays,
about 2.5 m in diameter, to be used in a transect. We assume that small pitfall arrays

4

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

arranged in transects might be more similar in sampling characteristics to transects
of snap traps than larger pitfall arrays are. In contrast to other types of pitfalls, the
small pitfall arrays also are easier to set and cause less disturbance to the environ¬
ment.

In order to determine the efficacy of the small pitfall arrays, we set four transects
of arrays of the miniature pitfalls parallel to four snap trap transects from the
long-term project at Mountain Lake. Our main objective was to measure the
capture success of small mammals (especially long-tailed shrews) based on pitfall
trapping, for comparison with the capture success of small mammals (especially
rodents and short-tailed shrews) as determined by snap trapping. For further
comparisons we also include a summary of the long-term study at Mountain Lake
and the results of a preliminary pitfall study in 1987 in the same area. In addition
to species richness and abundance of small mammals obtained by various trapping
methods, we discuss the distribution and habitat preferences of various species,
with emphasis on shrews. In a companion paper we compare the compact pitfall
array with other types of pitfalls in current use (Handley and Kalko, in press).

METHODS

Study site, projects, and observation periods

In this paper, we present data from three related projects, all done in the vicinity
of Mountain Lake (37^21’N, 80^32’W), Giles County, Virginia. The first project is
a continuing long-term study of distribution, population dynamics, and ecology of
small mammals using transects of snap traps. This study has been underway since
1962. We give some details of the 1991 snap trapping and the first summary of a
15-year segment (1976-1991) in which small mammals were sampled with a stan¬
dardized routine. Throughout this paper "long-term study" refers to the 1976-1991
segment. Reporting a second project of the fall of 1991 (4 September - 17 October),
we compare capture rates of snap trap transects used in the long-term study with
capture rates of pitfall arrays set parallel to them. Finally, from our third project,
we show the results of a short-term study with pitfalls at the Mountain Lake
Biological Station done by Handley in the fall of 1987 (28 August - 25 September)
which gave us data on the effect of rainfall on capture success, lacking in our 1991
data base. Our definition of "small mammal faima" in this paper includes shrews,
mice, voles, and jumping mice. Although we occasiondly caught chipmunks
{Tamias striatus)^ flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans), and packrats (Neotoma
floridana) in snap traps, we did not include them in the results presented here. We
sampled these species with larger traps in a separate project.

Weather conditions

In the fall of 1987, climatic conditions at Moimtain Lake were about average for
that season. There was rain on 11 of the 29 days of pitfall operation. In contrast, the
fall of 1991 was unusually dry. Drought conditions prevailed. Some streams dried
up and soil was dry and often powdery. Rainfall in August, September, and October
totaled only 44.7 mm (August, 25.9 mm; September, 11.7 mm; October, 7.1 mm).
In this three month period the greatest precipitation in 24 hours was only 13.2 mm
on 4 August 1991. Average rainfall for these months for the 15-year period,
1972-1987, was 308 mm (104.1 mm, 98.2 mm, 105.7 mm) (G. Parker, pers. comm.).
Temperature was near normal in the fall of 1991. Maxima and minima averaged

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

5

23®C and 13®C in August, 20®C and 11°C in September, and 16°C and 3°C in

October.

Habitats sampled

1) Snap trap transects (1976-1991). Sampling included all of the major habitat
types in the area: A) Cliff and Talus. B) Forest. C) Stream and Bog. D) Meadow.
Six snap trap transects were set in each of the four habitats, thus 24 transects in all.

Transects were sited in all of the major topographic imits of the area, including
three high ridges (Big Mountain, Salt Pond Mountain, and Butt Mountain), all
cresting above 1200 m; and four drainages (Big Stony Creek, Little Stony Creek,
Sinking Creek, and John's Creek), e^dting from the area as low as 900 m. Transects
varied in elevation from 945 to 1250 m.

Transects also sampled variations in each of the major habitat types. Thus,
habitats represented in the Cliff and Talus habitat included cliffs with little break¬
down and shallow talus or massive breakdown and deep talus, moist cool cliffs and
warm dry cliffs, talus aprons, and talus streams. The Forest habitat type included
coniferous and deciduous forests, moist and dry forests, and rocky and deep soil
forests, with much or little herbaceous ground cover. The Stream and Bog habitat
type included sphagnum bogs with hemlock and with spruce, sedge bogs with alder
and with St. Johnswort, and banks of streams through rhododendron thickets,
through meadow, and through forest. The Meadow habitat type included meadows
in the form of old fields in various stages of regrowth, with patches of grass and
sedge, or goldenrod and ironweed, moist and dry meadows, and a narrow linear
meadow along a utihty line.

2) Pitfall transects (1991). Four pitfall transects were set parallel to snap trap
transects, each of them representing one of the four major habitat types:

A) Cliff and Talus. Castle (Wind) Rock Ledge, 7.1 km NNE Mountain Lake,
1250 m. Transect through damp talus at the foot of a ledge in birch-red maple forest
on a relatively cool northwest-facing slope.

B) Forest. Twin Springs Trail, 2.6 km NNE Mountain Lake, 1165 m. Transect
along trail through flat, rocky, dry, oak-hickory forest with numerous rotting logs
but little herbaceous ground cover. Three of the pitfall sites were flooded in rain.

C) Stream and Bog. Ashley Bogs (Little Meadows), 4.4 km NW Mountain Lake,
945 m. Transect included a wet sedge- alder-O^mu/ida bog, with mud and standing
water, adjacent to steep slopes with dry oak-hickory forest; and a dry (seasonally
damp) sedge-//ypcffcum -alder bog with adjacent flat ground white pine forest. All
pitfall sites were flooded in rain.

D) Meadow. Ashley Meadows (Little Meadows), 4.5 km NW Mountain Lake,
940 m. Transect segments in openings in valley floor white pine forest: damp
meadow at old house site, damp swale with sedge and Hypericum between lawn and
forest, and large dry scdg^-Hypericum meadow. Half of the sites were flooded in
rain.

3) Pitfall trapping at forest ponds (1987). The pitfalls were installed around two
forest ponds, Horton and Sylvatica, at the Mountain Lake Biological Station. None
of these flooded.

Configuration of transects

1) Snap trap transects (1976-1991). In most years of the study 24 transects were
used. Each transect contained 100 (rarely fewer) Museum Special snap traps,

6

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

spaced at intervals of about 10 (occasionally 5) meters (measured by pacing), and
baited with rolled oats. The average transect was a little less than 1000 meters long.
In the fall of 1991 only 23 snap trap transects were set, as one long used study area
was lost to development in 1987.

2) Pitfall transects (1991). Our pitfalls were 2 liter plastic soft drink bottles with
their tops cut off (20 cm deep and 11 cm in diameter) and 3.8 liter (1 gal.) containers
approximately 17 cm deep and 15 cm in diameter. The containers were sunk into
the ground with lips flush with the surface to form pitfalls. Each pitfall was sheltered
from rain, falling leaves, sun, and moonlight by a square of vinyl siding 30 x 30 cm.
In damp ground we compensated for fluctuating water tables by pegging down the
pitfalls. One long, hooked peg on either side of a pitfall effectively held it in place.
We filled the pitfalls to about half their depth with 10% formalin to preserve
specimens.

We formed the pitfalls into arrays of seven pitfalls each in a 3-leaf clover pattern
(120^ between arms), with a 3.8 liter container at the center and 2 liter bottles on
either side, near the distal end of each arm (drift fence). The drift fences, pieces of
vinyl siding 1.2 m long by 30 cm high, converged at the central pitfall. An array of
seven pitfalls fits into a triangle a httle less than 2.5 m from corner to corner. For
more details see Handley and Yarn (in press).

We set four pitfall transects parallel to four snap trap transects. Each 1000 m
transect contained 14 compact pitfall arrays (totaling 98 pitfalls) at intervals of
about 75 m, and 100 Museum Special snap traps at intervals of about 10 m.
Theoretically, snap traps might have caught something that otherwise could have
gotten into a pitfall or vice versa. However, we assume that with the pitfall arrays
75 meters apart, only every seventh snap trap was near a pitfall array, so impact of
one trapping method on the other must have been slight.

3) Pitfalls at forest ponds (1987). In the fall of 1987 Handley experimented
briefly with 16 pitfalls that had been installed by Adrian Massey for a study of
salamanders at the Mountain Lake Biological Station. The pitfalls were 3.8 liter
cans on either side of aluminum drift fences that partly surrounded two small forest
ponds. The pitfalls had roofs and, as far as possible, they were kept dry.

Sampling routine and trap nights

1) Snap trap transects (1976-1991). Throughout the study the same transects
have been sampled usually biannually, in a night-day-night routine (n-d-n = 2 trap
nights).

2) Pitfall transects (1991). Immediately after installation we checked the pitfall
transects with the same n-d-n routine described above. After the snap trap transects
were removed, we continued to check the pitfall arrays periodically during a
sampling period of four weeks. We could not record the captures of the first n-d-n
of the Cliff and T alus pitfall transect. In place of these missing data we have included
the captures of the first week of the Cliff and Talus habitat. Comparing the results
of the n-d-n captures with the results after 1 week for the other pitfall transects, we
doubt the extra nights had much if any effect on species composition in the Cliff
and Talus habitat. Also, the overstatement of number of individuals is probably
below 40% as most of the other pitfall arrays caught around 60% of the total number
of specimens for the one week sampling period in the first n-d-n period.

3) Pitfalls at forest ponds (1987). The pitfalls were checked twice daily for 29
days.

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

7

RESULTS

Comparison of captures of small mammals in parallel
transects of pitfall arrays and snap traps

Pitfalls and snap traps combined sampled a total of 12 species of small mammals
(Tables 1 and 2). This represents the entire small mammd fauna of the area. The
number of species caught was similar in the two trapping methods (eight species in
snap traps, nine in pitfalls), but the species composition differed (Table 1). Five
species were caught by both trapping methods: masked shrew {Sorex cinereus)^
big-tailed shrew (Sorex dispar), smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus), short-tailed shrew
(Blarina brevicauda), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus); four only in the
pitfalls: pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi), lemming vole (Synaptomys cooperi), meadow
jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), and woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus
insignis); and three only in the snap traps: white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and red-backed vole
(Clethrionomys gapped).

Species richness varied with habitat. The Cliff and Talus habitat showed the
greatest richness with a total of nine species, followed by the Stream and Bog habitat
with eight species, the Meadow habitat with six species, and the Forest habitat with
only five species.

The number of species caught within habitats depended on the trapping
method. In Cliff and Talus three of the total of nine species were caught only by
snap traps, two only by pitfall arrays, and four by both methods. In Stream and Bog
three of eight species were caught only by snap traps, three by pitfall arrays, and
two by both methods. In Meadow two of six species were caught by snap traps alone,
three by pitfall arrays, and one by both methods. Finally, in Forest four of five
species were caught by snap trapping alone and one by both methods.

Capture success (number of specimens caught) was higher in the snap trap
transects than in the pitfall arrays, 107 versus 77 (Table 1). However, 59 of the snap
trapped mammals were white-footed mouse and deer mouse, which we rarely
caught in om* pitfalls. Without Peromyscus, the capture results favor the pitfalls, 77
to 48.

The capture success of the two trapping methods varied with species (Table 2).
Peromyscus, which made up 55% of the total snap trap captures, were not caught
in pitfalls in the n-d-n schedule. In contrast, long-tailed shrews, which made up only
13% of total captures from snap trap transects totaled 82% of pitfall captures.
Short-tailed shrews were sampled in higher numbers in snap traps (13% of total
captures) than in pitfall arrays (6% of total captures). Jumping mice, 8% of pitfall
captures, were not caught in snap traps. Voles, constituting 19% of snap trap
captures, accounted for only 4% of pitfall captmes.

The capture success of the two methods differed in the various habitats (Table
1). In Stream and Bog the transect of pitfall arrays caught more mammals (25) than
the snap trap transect (19). In Cliff and Talus the number of specimens was almost
the same (27 in pitfalls to 26 in snap traps) and in Meadow the two methods were
equally productive (19 each). In the Forest, because oi Peromyscus, the snap trap
transect caught many more mammals (43) than the pitfall arrays (6).

TABLE 1. Comparison of two night catches in paired snap trap (ST) and pitfall (PF) transects near Mountain Lake, Virginia, September 1991.

8

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

c/3

o

I

D

c/3

CD

Ui

£

bO

O

n

B

cn

CD

C/3

13

U

§

a

CC3

d

c/5

Ph

pL^

H

c/5

Ph

PLh

H

c/5

Ph

CL

H

c/5

P-^

CL

*

H

c/5

00

VO

r- c-i Tt- ^ lo
W-)

Tf 00

n Tf (N o Os

tH
m VO

VO

cn

>0

W-)

Tt ^ C-
tH c-H

o\

l> 00

o

rH rH OV ^

Tt VO

OV

VO

m

00

r- o

(N c-H

o\ m

VO

^ CO

n m ^

<N m cn CO 00

rH Tf rH CT)

n r<5 Tt wo VO <N

OV wo

r- VO

a .

<>3
Q C^i

-§
3
3
.O

^ g ’1^1

’o *3 ^ 3

^ ^ ^ ^ ’C

o o o o

Co Co Co Co Oq

II

CJ S

i>)

3 3
O V.J

I §

CL CL

g .§

^ 3

I

§

c

rg

6

■g

g'.S

8 I

1-^

M

S' g.

s. §■

.8 a

(D

03 c/3

3 9 9
-O

g (D <D

^ Ph Cl.

g c/3 c/3

« 13 13

3^0 O
H H

*Seven night catch

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

9

TABLE 2. Comparison of frequen^ (percent of total catch) of five groups of small mammals in
catches of paired pitfall and snap trap transects. Data from Table 1.

Species

Total

species

Pitfalls

Snap

traps

Combined
pitfalls &
snap traps

Sorex

long-tailed shrews

4

82%

13%

42%

Blarina

short-tailed shrews

1

6%

13%

10%

Peromyscus

white-footed & deer mice

2

0

55%

32%

ARVICOLINAE

voles

3

4%

19%

13%

ZAPOPIDAE
jumping mice

2

8%

0

3%

Total species

12

9

8

12

Total catch

77

107

184

Abundance and distribution of long-tailed shrews as
measured with snap trap transects in a 15-year study
In the long-term study, captures of long-tailed shrews (Sorex) totaled 297
specimens in 34,763 trap nights (Table 3). The masked shrew was the most
frequently captured, 52% of total captures of Sorex, The smoky shrew comprised
38% and the big-tailed shrew was only 10% of total captures. The average capture
rate for the masked shrew in the 15-year sample was 0.44 shrews per 100 trap nights.

Abundance of long-tailed shrews varied with habitat (Table 3). Snap trap
transects in Cliff and Talus habitats caught the most shrews, with 36% of total
captured long-tailed shrews. Stream and Bog habitats contributed 25% of captures,
while Forest habitats produced 20%, and Meadow habitats only 19% of the Sorex.

The Cliff and Talus habitat also exhibited the greatest diversity of species (Table
3). Three species, masked, smoky, and big- tailed shrews, were represented in that
habitat in substantial numbers. These same three species were also found in Stream
and Bog, but the big-tailed shrew was caught there only once in 15 years. It was
never found in Meadow or Forest habitat, which revealed only two species each.

Habitat preferences varied among the long- tailed shrews (Table 3). The masked
shrew occurred in all habitats but was taken most often in Forest (32%) and
Meadow (30%); less often in Stream and Bog (19%) and Cliff and Tadus (19%).
The smoky shrew also was trapped in all habitat types, but in smaller numbers than
the masked shrew. In contrast to the masked shrew, most smoky shrews were
trapped in Cliff and Talus (42%) and Stream and Bog (41%); only 11% were caught
in Forest and 6% in Meadow. The big-tailed shrew was taken almost exclusively in
Cliff and Talus (97%); only once in rocks on an alluvial plain in a Stream and Bog
habitat.

10

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

TABLE 3. Habitat preferences of long-tailed shrews in a 15-year sampling period (1976-1991) in
snap trap transects near Mountain Lake, Virginia. Number of specimens in each habitat type and
percentage of species total in each habitat type. Total trap nights 34,763.

Cliff
& Talus

Stream
& Bog

Forest

Meadow

Total specimens
of each species

Sorex cinereus

29(19%)

29(19%)

48(32%)

47(30%)

153(52%)

Sorex dispar

30(97%)

1(3%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

31(10%)

Sorex fumeus

48(42%)

46(41%)

12(11%)

7(6%)

113(38%)

Total specimens

of long-tailed

shrews per habitat

107(36%)

76(25%)

60(20%)

54(19%)

297(100%)

Abundance and distribution of long-tailed shrews as
measured bytransects of pitfall arrays in sampling
periods of four weeks

Small mammals captured in four pitfall transects from which specimens were
removed after 2 nights, after one week (Iw), and after four weeks (4w) from first
removal, totaled 219 specimens of 11 species (Table 4). Four species of long-tailed
shrews made up 82% of total captures. Short-tailed shrews and rodents were caught
infrequently and in small numbers. Compared with results of the long-term snap
trap study (Table 3), the four transects of pitfall arrays reached 61% of total
numbers of Sorex from the entire 15-year sampling of 24 snap trap transects. The
capture rate of long-tailed shrews in pitfalls was 1.6% (captures divided by trap
ni^ts, 181/11,270), almost twice that for snap traps with 0.9% (297/34,763).

The masked shrew was the most commonly caught small mammal in the pitfall
arrays. For that species, captures in four weeks of continuous pitfall trapping (170
specimens in 11,270 trap nights) exceeded the entire take from 15 years of snap
trapping in 24 transects (153 specimens in 34,763 trap nights). The capture rate of
this shrew was almost four times greater in pitfalls than in snap traps (1.5% versus
0.4%).

We caught only nine smoky shrews in the four pitfall transects in four weeks,
fewer than we expected in view of the numbers (28) captured in the 23 snap trap
transects of 1991 and in the 15-year study (113). In the 23 transects of snap traps
set in 1991, total captures of smoky shrews slightly exceeded captures of masked
shrews (28 vs. 25).

Our capture of only one big-tailed shrew in the month of pitfaU trapping was in
sharp contrast to the six taken in the 1991 snap trap transects and 31 taken in the
15 years of snap trapping. On the other hand, we caught a pygmy shrew {Sorex hoyi)
in a pitfall, the first of this species ever taken in the Moimtain Lake area.

The capture success of the pitfall arrays varied over time. For example, the take
in the last three weeks of the project was greater than the take in the first week in
the Cliff and Talus transect, but smaller in the last three weeks than in the first week
in the other three transects (Table 4). In the Stream and Bog and Meadow transects

TABLE 4, Pitfall trapping near Mountain Lake, Virginia, September-October 1991. Numbere of small mammals caught in pitfalls in four habitats in the first
week (Iw) and in the second through fourth weeks (4w) of sampling. Specimens removed on the second morning (Table 2) are included in the first week’s (Iw)
catch.

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

d

o

O

5A o ^ o g

o

o

Q

u

OJ

D.

0^0^

00.

>d.

>o.

wa

O

W5

d

.1

rH a\ t-4

fo

T-i 04

rH

OS

rH

rH

rH

R

o

T— i

04

a,

rH

o

O

tn

a\

r4

rH

CO T— 1

rH

OS

•rs

SO

2450

o

cn

00

e>4

tn

s

Os

s

rH

i-N

rH rH

rH

cn

»/4

s

t-H

o

tH

^ ca

so

CO

3136

o

U

o

1

SO

r<i

o

tH

m

b

04

so

rH

04

s

too

O

PQ

o

CNI

m

04

04 iTi

00

SO

04

i

4w

en

rH

CO

04

«n

1862

Iw

cn

04 C^

M-

vs

784

3

H

o

»n

^ ©0

r-t

rH

rH

SO

3038

00

d

a

U

T-t

m

rH

so

§8

r~i

3

in

i i § 3

I' «

•a

3 .s e

40

G

§

Taxon

Sorex cinereus

Sorex dispar
Sorex fidmeus
Sorex hoyi

All Sorex
Blarina brevic
Peromyscus lei
Peromyscus m
All Peromysc

I s 1

S-I'O
I IS

§ 3

13^

^ 1 1

3

Total specime
Total species

'S

Sm

■p.

2

11

12

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

we found a decline from the second to the seventh night but during the same period
captures in the Forest increased.

Temporal variation in capture rate (Table 4) was dominated in the pitfalls by
fluctuations in numbers of masked shrews. Overall the numbers of this shrew
declined from 90 after the first week to 80 in the next three weeks. We caught
enough masked shrews so that we can comment on its preferences of habitat. In
the pitfall transects most masked shrews were caught in the Stream and Bog habitat
(32%) and in Meadow (29%). Fewer were caught in the Cliff and Talus (27%), and
only 12% in the Forest habitat.

Pitfall trapping at forest ponds (1987)

In the pitfalls set around forest ponds at the Mountain Lake Biological Station
in 1987, 67 small mammals were captured in 446 trap nights: masked shrew 64,
smoky shrew 1, least shrew (Cryptotis parvus) 1, and lemming vole 1. The number
of masked shrews at the forest ponds, 14 per 100 pitfall nights, is astonishingly high.
In contrast, masked shrews in snap trap transects at the same time averaged only
0.3 shrews per 100 trap nights. The capture of a least shrew is also notable as this
individual is one of only ten that have been caught during the 1962-1991 period in
the Mountain Lake area.

Capture of long-tailed shrews in the pitfalls around the ponds frequently
coincided with rainfall (Fig.l). Most masked shrews, 46 (72%), were caught on
rainy days; only 18 (28%) on dry days. Only six shrews were caught in the first nine
days (7 of 9 days without rain), whereas 33 were caught in the next 9 days when it
rained on eight of the days.

DISCUSSION

Comparison of snap trap and pitfall transects

Comparison of the results of our trapping with transects of the compact pitfall
arrays set parallel to transects of Museum Special snap traps shows that these two
methods of trapping small mammals are closely complementary. The combination
of pitfall trapping and snap trapping sampled the whole small mammal fauna of the
area. Althou^ in total the two trapping methods had similar sampling character¬
istics (number of species, and number of individuals caught), each sampled a
different part of the fauna. The samples from the two methods showed little overlap
in species composition. The compact pitfall arrays were best for capturing masked
and pygmy shrews, lemming vole, and jumping mice. Museum Special snap traps
excelled in capturing big-tailed, smoky, and short-tailed shrews, white-footed and
deer mice, and red-backed and meadow voles. Also, there was little overlap in the
total number of specimens per species sampled by each method. Stated in more
general terms, snap trapping in the Mountain Lake area caught masked shrews in
small numbers, voles in moderate numbers, dJidPeromyscus in great numbers, while
compact pitfall arrays caught masked shrews in great numbers, jumping mice in
moderate numbers, doidPeromyscus in low numbers (Table 1).

Our combination of trapping methods yielded results on species diversity,
distribution, and relative abundance that cannot be achieved with either pitfalls or
snap traps used alone. The trapping results indicate to us that the configuration of
the pitfil arrays and snap trap transects used in this study achieve capture data
that can be combined into a single data set to better estimate relative abundance
of taxa in inventories of the whole small mammal fauna. In the combined captures

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA 13

in 1991 Sorex and Peromyscus made up about one-third each, voles made up about
one-sixth, and Blarina and jumping mice together made up the final sixth (Table
2). We assume that other configurations of traps (e.g., variations in size of pitfalls,
length of drift fence, and spacing of pitfalls and snap traps) might lead to different
capture results, difficult to compare. Larger pitfall arrays for example might
oversample shrews or mice and interfere substantially with the snap trap transects
if they were used in combination.

For example, Pagels et al. (1992) used large pitfall arrays to compare the small
mammal faunas of forests and clearcuts in central Virginia (Cumberland County).
Their arrays were triads with 5 m arms, a 10 m central gap, and 19 liter (5 gallon)
pitfalls. If these triads were equivalent to our snap trap/pitfall combination, we
would expect that they sampled small mammals in proportions similar to our
results. This is the case for mice; in their study, mice, including Peromyscus,
accounted for about one-third of all small mammals. However, Pagels et al.
obtained different results for the rest of the small mammals. Small shrews ac¬
counted for one quarter, Blarina and jumping mice for one quarter, and voles for
the remaining fraction. As capture techniques and habitats sampled differ from our
study, we cannot say whether the differences in proportions of species observed by
Pagels et al. are due to trapping method only or to different faunal compositions.

Abundance of long-tailed shrews

Most investigators who have trapped in the habitat of the masked shrew have
found it to be the most abundant species in their pitfalls (e.g., Clarke 1938; Innes
and Bendell 1988). Our results corroborate this, as the masked shrew made up by
far the largest fraction (77%) among the small mammals we caught in 1991 in
pitfalls. In contrast, the most abundant small mammal in snap traps of the 15-year
sample always has been a Peromyscus or a vole, while the masked shrew was only
2.2% of total captures (153 of 6998), and in 1991 snap traps it was only 3.6% (25 of
704).

Three other species of long-tailed shrews (smoky, big-tailed, and pygmy) were
few in pitfalls, together totaling only 5% of small mammals caught in 1991. Again
the 15-year snap trap sample presented a very different pictme. The numbers of
these toee species together (145 individuals or 2.1% of ^ small mammals) were
almost the same as numbers of the masked shrew.

We seldom caught smoky shrews in our pitfalls-only nine in 11,270 pitfall nights
(0.08/100). Perhaps capture success was depressed because of the drought. How¬
ever, snap traps in 1991 caught 28 smoky shrews-twice the annual mean (14.1) for
the 15-year sample. The 28 shrews translate to a capture rate of 0.43/100-more
than five times the capture rate of this shrew in the pitfalls.

The big-tailed shrew is even less frequently caught in pitfalls (Pagels 1987). It
is clear from our data that snap traps capture big-tailed shrews better than the
compact pitfall arrays. Only one big-tailed shrew was caught in pitfalls in 1991, while
snap traps caught six. Snap traps caught 31 individuals or 10% of all long-tailed
shrews in the 15-year sample. We suspect that the home range of the big-tailed
shrew has a large vertical component, which makes the placement of traps difficult.
Whereas our snap traps were set mainly under rocks and always as deep in talus as
we could reach, the pitfalls could be set only on the surface. Under drought
conditions, as in 1991, the big-tailed shrew probably spends most of the time in the

14

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

cool, damp crevices under the rocks and seldom comes to the warm, dry surface.
Thus, the greater success of snap traps for sampling this shrew seems to reflect our
inability to place pitfalls where this species is most active. In cool, wet weather the
results might be different.

The rarest of Mountain Lake shrews, the pygmy shrew, has never been taken in
the project's 29 years of snap trapping. Our 1991 pitfalls caught one. Other studies
also have shown that pygmy shrews are rarely caught in traps other than pitfalls
(e.g., Clarke 1938, Ontario; DeMott and Lindsay 1975, Colorado; Kirkland, et al.
1987, Pennsylvania; Pagels 1987, Virginia; Prince 1941, Ontario).

These data indicate that pitfalls are superior for sampling masked and pygmy
shrews; snap traps are better for sampling smoky and big-tailed shrews. We think
that our compact pitfall arrays yield reasonable estimates of relative abundance of
masked and pygmy shrews. Probably neither trapping method estimates the abun¬
dance of smoky or big-tailed shrews very well.

Habitat preferences of long-tailed shrews

Our snap trap data clearly segregated the common long-tailed shrews, masked
shrew (52% of Sorex), and smoky shrew (38% of Sorex) by habitat preference. The
masked shrew preferred Forest and Meadow by 62% (15-year data) to 80% (1991
data), while the smoky shrew favored Cliff and Talus and Stream and Bog by 83%
(15-year data) to 100% (1991 data). Cliff and Talus and Stream and Bog were the
most moist of the four habitats S2unpled. The other Mountain Lake Sorex were
almost exclusively in Cliff and Talus. In fact. Cliff and Talus had the greatest species
richness oi Sorex. It is likely that moisture can explain the observed species richness
in shrews, as moisture is regarded as one of the major determinants of soricid
richness (e.g., Kirkland, 1991). We further assume that the masked shrew, which
preferentially occurred in Forest and Meadow, might have greater tolerance of
dryness than the other long-tailed shrews do.

In contrast to our snap trap results, Spencer and Pettus (1966) did not find
segregation of common long-tailed shrews by habitat. They stuped habitat prefer¬
ences of five species of Sorex with pitfalls during four consecutive summers in
Colorado and observed in three of the five species a year-to-year consistency in
habitat choice. The masked shrew was always the most abundant species and it,
together with the common vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans), was caught most often in
the wettest habitat, marsh, which differs from our findings. Perhaps differences in
the distribution and availabihty of food lead to varying degrees of interspecific
competition among the shrews, and might explain the observed pattern.

In our 1991 pitfall data for the masked shrew we observed an apparent shift in
habitat preference, contradicting our snap trap data. We found high numbers of
this species in Cliff and Talus, Stream and Bog, and Meadow habitats and low
numbers in the Forest habitat. Based on om* long-term snap trap results we would
expect highest numbers in Forest and Meadow and lower numbers in Cliff and
Talus and Stream and Bog. The Forest habitat in which we placed the pitfall
tr2msect was extremely dry in the fall of 1991, so it is likely that the observed shift
in habitat preference of this species was a change in accessibility for capture (i.e.,
the shrews became more subterranean or emigrated to damper habitats), an artifact
of the drought.

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

15

This assumption is supported by a study by Moore (1949) who used pitfalls along
the Twin Springs Trail, the site of our forest transect, in August 1947. In 144 pitfall
nights he caught 22 masked shrews. Moore observed that conditions along the trail
in August 1947 varied from mesic to near hydric. Rain filled his pitfalls to a depth
of as much as an inch almost daily. In contrast to Moore’s capture rate of 15 shrews
per 100 pitfalls our captme rate for masked shrews along Twin Springs Trail, under
drought conditions, was only 0.6 shrews per hundred pitfalls. These results clearly
demonstrate that not only trapping method but also climatic factors affect capture
success. They also show how cautious one must be, especially in short-term projects,
to evaluate capture techniques and climatic influence before assigning habitat
preferences for species.

All our results indicate that moisture has a strong influence on habitat prefer¬
ence in shrews. Kirkland (1991) suggested as a possible reason that greater site
moisture might lead to greater abundance and diversity of invertebrates suitable as
prey for shrews. Kirkland (1991) further hypothesized that given sufficient moisture
and thus adequate food resources, habitats support syntopic populations of shrews.
He postulated that syntopic shrews ideally sort into size classes, each with a pair of
species, one a common generalist and the other an imcommon specialist. In
]&kland’s classification masked and pygmy shrews are small and smoky and
big-tailed shrews are medium size. By I^kland’s hypothesis the common Sorex in
the Mountain Lake fauna, masked and smoky shrews, represent different size
classes and should be able to coexist without the habitat separation we observed in
our long-term snap trap results. Even after considering site moisture our findings
do not support Kirkland’s hypothesis. One explanation could be that masked and
smoky shrew differ in their requirements for moisture. Our results indicate that the
masked shrew might have a greater tolerance of dryness.

Influence of moisture on capture rate of shrews

When we checked pitfalls on a daily basis in 1987, we found that almost
three-quarters of the masked shrews were caught on rainy days. In this instance,
captures correlated with rainfall rather than with chronology. Of course, we would
expect a decrease in captures with the passage of time as individuals were removed
from populations. However, the greatest munber of captures occurred on the 24th
day of sampling. Our results are in accordance with those of Doucet and Bider
(1974) who observed that rainfall increased the nocturnal activity of the masked
shrew. They observed that time of onset of rain also correlated with activity, and
that temperature, clouds, and wind direction had a smaller bearing on activity.

The large number of masked shrews caught in 1987 at the ponds (Fig.l) may
also have been influenced by the proximity of standing water, no more than 1-2 m
from any of the pitfalls. Similarly, the relatively large numbers taken in 1991 pitfall
transects (Table 4) in the bogs, which were partially flooded (2.1 shrews per 100
pitfalls); in the meadow, where half of the pitfalls were partially flooded (2.0 shrews
per 100 pitfalls); and in Cliff and Talus, on a cool and damp north slope (1.5 shrews
per 100 pitfalls) seem to correlate with soil moisture. In contrast, the dry forest
transect had a capture rate for long-tailed shrews of only 0.6% and most of those
shrews were cau^t in the three arrays in the transect that were partially flooded.

16

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

FIGURE 1. Captures of masked shrews (Soroxcinereus) in pitfalls around forest ponds at the Mountain
Lake Biological Station, 28 August to 25 September 1987 (29 days). Days with rainfall marked with R
and with black dot capture symbol.

CONCLUSIONS

Do captures of small mammals in compact pitfall arrays answer questions about
distribution and abundance of these species sufficiently well to justify the extra
effort of setting a pitfall transect? When dealing with the small mammal faima as a
whole, the answer is definitely yes. The pitfalls yield information on species rich¬
ness, distribution, and on the abundance of long-tailed shrews and jumping mice
that cannot be obtained with snap traps, while the snap traps produce much better
data for mice, large shrews, and most voles. The trapping methods we used are
complementary, and data from the two sources can be pooled for analysis. Our
transects of compact pitfall arrays in combination with transects of snap traps are
a solution to the long-standing problem of how to set transects using two trapping
methods that are complementary and achieve comparable results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are most grateful to Chris Pague and Kurt Buhlmann, Virginia Natural
Heritage Program, for helping us dig in the pitfall transects in September 1991. We

SMALL MAMMALS IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA

17

are thankful to officials of the University of Virginia Mountain Lake Biological
Station, Henry Wilbur, present Director, and J. J. Murray, Jr., former Director, for
allowing us to conduct some of our studies on station property; Juhan McCroskey
for access to weather data and numerous other courtesies; and dozens of students
who did the snap trapping from 1962 through 1978. Without the help during the
1980's of Todd Handley, Chris Schaum, Penny Nelson, Becca Schad, Merrill Yarn,
and Andrea Grosse, we would have found it difficult to get all the trapping done.
We are most appreciative to John Harshbarger and to members of the Little
Meadows Hunt Club for allowing us to conduct many of our studies on Little
Meadows property and we thank David L. Collins, District Ranger, U.S. Forest
Service for permission to site one of our pitfall transects in the Jefferson National
Forest. We appreciate the generosity of Geoffrey Parker, Smithsonian Environ¬
mental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland, in sharing his compilation of
Mountain Lake weather data with us. We are grateful to David Reynolds and family
who collected hundreds of plastic soft drink bottles for us. We owe many thanks to
Darelyn Handley for critically reading and computerizing the manuscript and
tables. We were greatly aided by John Pagels’ suggestions when we revised the
manuscript. This project was supported by funds from the Department of Verte¬
brate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, and from the Smithsonian’s
Office of Products Development and Licensing (Lisa Stevenson, Director) to
Handley, and a NATO postdoctoral fellowship to Kalko. Data analysis, writing,
and 1991 fieldwork were shared equally by Kalko and Handley. Pre-1991 fieldwork
was conducted by Handley.

LITERATURE CITED

Clarke, C. H. D. 1938. A study of the mammal population of the vicinity of Pancake
Bay, Algoma District, Ontario. Nat. Mus. Canada. Bull. 88:141-152.

DeMott, S. L., and G. P. Lindsey. 1975. Pygmy shrew, Microsorex/iqy/, in Gunnison
County, Colorado. Southwestern Nat. 20:417-418.

Doucet, G. J., and J. R. Bider. 1974. The effects of weather on the activity of the
masked shrew. J. Mamm. 55:348-363.

Handley, C. O., Jr., and E. K. V. Kalko. 1993. A short history of pitfall trapping in
America, with a review of methods currently used for small mammals. Virginia
J. Sci. 44:19-26.

Handley, C. O., Jr., and M. Yarn. In press. The trapline concept applied to pitfall
arrays. In J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland, Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.. Proceedings
of the International Colloquium on the Biology of the Soricidae. Spec. Publ.,
Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. no. 1611.

Innes, D. G. L., and J. F. Bendell. 1988. Sampling of small mammals by different
types of traps in northern Ontario, Canada. Acta Theriologica 33:443-450.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr. 1991. Competition and coexistence in shrews (Insectivora:
Soricidae). Pp. 15-22 in J. S. Findley and T. L. Yates, eds.. The biology of the
Soricidae. Mus. Southwestern Biol., Univ. New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and P. K. Sheppard. In press. Proposed standard protocol for
pitfall sampling of small mammal communities. In J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland,
Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the
Biology of the Soricidae. Spec. Publ., Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. no. 1611.

18

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Kirkland, G. L., Jr., A. M. Wilkinson, J. V. Planz, and J. E. Maldonado. 1987. Sorex
(Microsorex) hoyi in Pennsylvania. J. Mamm. 68:384-387.

Moore, J. C. 1949. Notes on the shrew, Sorex cinereus, in the southern Appalachi¬
ans. Ecology 30:234-237.

Pagels, J. F. 1987. The pygmy shrew, rock shrew and water shrew: Virginia’s rarest
shrews (Mammalia: Soricidae). Virginia J. Sci. 38:364-368.

Pagels, J. F., S. Y. Erdle, K. L. Uthus, and J. C. Mitchell. 1992. Small mammal
diversity in forested and clearcut habitats in the Virginia Piedmont. Virginia J.
Sci. 43(113):171-176.

Prince, L. A. 1941. Water traps capture the pigmy shrew (Microsorex hoyi) in
abundance. Canadian Field Nat. 55:72.

Spencer, A. W., and D. Pettus. 1966. Habitat preferences of long-tailed shrews.
Ecology 47:677-683.

Virginia Journal of Science
Volume 44, Number 1
Spring 1993

A Short History of Pitfall Trapping in America, with a
Review of Methods Currently Used for Small Mammals

Charles O. Handley, Jr. and Elisabeth K. V. Kalko

Division of Mammals, National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
ABSTRACT

We review the history of pitfall trapping for small mammals in America,
describe and classify currently used pitfall techniques, comment on the
method we have developed for combining pitfall and snap traps in transects,
and describe circumstances in which each of the currently used pitfall
alternatives should be the method of choice in studies of small mammals.

Key Words: Pitfall, pitfall techniques, small mammals

INTRODUCTION

Pitfalls are steep-sided cavities in the ground used to trap animals. Anthons use
pitfalls to capture small arthropods. Early human-beings dug pitfalls to trap
mammals for meat and hides. In this century zoologists have rediscovered the pitfall
as a device for capturing a variety of animals, including gastropods, arthropods,
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Now there is growing interest in pitfalls as a
means of capturing small mammals, particularly the smaller shrews so notoriously
difficult to catch in conventional snap traps or hve traps. Pitfalls are being used with
increasing frequency to supplement conventional traps to secure data for shrews.
Consequently, there is a rapidly growing hterature describing pitfalls used alone
and in combination with drift fences to trap small mammals, and another group of
papers comparing capture rates of various kinds of pitfalls with a variety of traps,
mostly Museum Special snap traps and Sherman hve traps. Disparate elements in
pitfall procedure have come together in the Proceedings of the Internationad
CoUoquium on the Biology of the Soricidae in a pair of papers describing pitfall
trapping concepts differing widely in scale and style. In the Proceedings, Kirkland
and Sheppard (in press) advocated a standard pitfall array 25 m in diameter,
whereas Handley and Varn (in press) touted a compact array only 2.5 m in
diameter.

Our objectives in this paper are to present an historical overview of the devel¬
opment of pitfaU trapping in America, to describe important improvements of the
current pitfall trapping techniques, and to define circumstances in which one or
any other of these alternatives should be the technique of choice in studies of small
mammals. To assess the efficiency of some of the ciurent models we compare the
results of other pitfall configurations with our own results obtained with a compact
array of pitfalls (Kalko and Handley, 1993). We have not included some often used
European types, such as cones, because they seem to have no bearing on the
development of pitfalls used in America. Nor have we included interesting specialty
devices such as false floors and various sorts of inserts, since they have not foimd
general apphcation. We have looked for pitfall trapping techniques in the literature
which we consider as important developments and do not intend this survey to be
exhaustive or all-inclusive.

20

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

RESULTS

Early use of pitfall traps to sample small mammals

The idea of using pitfalls to capture shrews and other small mammals seems to
have evolved in the i930’s. In an inventory of small mammals at Pancake Bay,
Ontario, in 1935, Clarke (1938) used materials from a handy dump, "...discarded 50
pound shortening pails, a few miscellaneous buckets, and a tub" partly filled with
water as pitfalls. In all he had only 569 pitfall nights, but he learned much from his
experience and realized that he had discovered a very useful new trapping tech¬
nique. He regarded the selectivity of his pitfalls in capturing small s^ews and
jumping mice as "very striking".

Llewellyn (1942) credited C. P. Patton with finding rodents and a least weasel
(Mustela nivalis) in "posthole traps" near Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1936. Actually,
Handley had discovered the row of 25 or 30 postholes which stood empty for several
weeks awaiting their posts. In the meantime they caught rodents and the weasel
which Handley collected and gave to Patton.

Subsequently, Handley dug several posthole pitfalls in a nearby swampy area,
hoping to capture shrews. However, it was soon apparent that this l^d of trapping
was too labor-intensive to be practical, so Handley replaced the postholes with 3.8
liter cans. The experiment was abandoned because, unsuspected by Handley, the
cans and postholes he used were too few to have a reasonable chance of capturing
shrews. Prince (1941) may have been the first to employ cans in large numbers as
pitfalls as we do today. In 1938 and 1939 in Ontario he used 6.5 Hter galvanized tin
sap buckets partly filled with water as a means of capturing many pygmy shrews
{Sorex hoyi).

The use of drift fences with pitfalls

Like the pitfall, the ancient concept of the drift fence had to be rediscovered by
zoologists as a means of enhancing trap success. Drift fences obstruct and disrupt
the normal movement patterns of animals, causing them to "drift" along the fence
until they can resume their normal courses. Used with pitfalls, the drift fence directs
animals into pitfalls placed beside or at the ends of the fence. Early applications of
drift fences did not include pitfalls and did not involve mammals. In 1938, Handley
used funnel-entrance traps beside a chicken-wire drift fence across a narrow
Calamus marsh through pasture to capture Virginia rails and sora for banding.
Imler (1945), another early proponent of the drift fence idea, used fences to
facilitate capture of bull snakes. Eventually Howard and Brock (1961) used drift
fences with pitfalls to enhance the capture of rodents. Now drift fences are
commonly used to link pitfalls together into arrays consisting of several, sometimes
dozens, of pitfalls beside fences of various lengths and in a variety of configurations.

Pitfalls in transects

Usually pitfalls have been organized in grids, often in combination with live
traps. Sometimes they have been placed in short lines sampling choice trapping
sites. DeMott and Lindsey (1975) mentioned incorporation of pitfalls into 1000 m
transects by Handley and students in the Gunnison Basin in the Colorado Rockies
in July and August 1971. Individual 0.95 liter (1 quart) oil cans, without drift fences,
were set at 5-10 m intervals in transects of 100 pitfalls each in five subalpine habitats
for a total of 13,190 pitfall nights. The capture of shrews totaled 291 individuals and

HISTORY OF PITFALL TRAPPING

21

included five pygmy shrews {Sorex hoyi). In addition to this, in 1971 and 1975, in
shorter transects of about 50 pitfalls each at a lower elevation in sagebrush, Handley
and George Lowman caught 5 Merriam’s shrews {Sorex merriami) and 18 dwarf
shrews (Sorex nanus). These three species, as well as the occurrence of other
long-tailed shrews in such large numbers, were previously unknown in the Gunnison
Basin in spite of many years of snap trapping and hve trapping in the same area by
investigators based at the Rocky Moimtain Biological Laboratory, near Crested
Butte, Colorado.

Catalog of pitfall trapping concepts in current use

Many and diverse pitfall trapping concepts have been introduced in the past
half century. Analysis of the literature reveals that there are a few common
denominators. Smaller or larger pitfalls, liquid filled or dry; with drift fences of
various lengths or without drift fences; fences in a triad or not; fences with a central
gap or not; and pitfalls in grids, transects, or standing alone yield different results.
The efficiency and utility of pitfalls depend on the kinds of traps used and their
configuration. In current use these factors have been combined into two basic pitfall
trapping concepts, differing in whether the pitfalls are combined with drift fences
or not. Variation within these types is largely a matter of scale (Fig. 1).

Type lA: Very large pitfalls without fences. Commonly these are 19 liter (5
gallon) cans, but sometimes smaller or larger cans are used, usually arranged in
grids. The pitfalls of Clarke (1938), the first serious pitfall trapper, were of this type.
Clarke used 50 pound cans and a tub, all partly filled with hquid, together with small
snap traps, to inventory small mammals in Ontario. His pitfalls caught large
numbers of masked shrews (23% of the pitfall captures), meadow jumping mice
(25%), and woodland jumping mice (21%), as well as individuals of 11 other species
of mammals in smaller numbers. In spite of their large size, his pitfalls caught few
Peromyscus (only 2% of total captures) and few larger mammals. His small snap
traps caught masked shrews and deer mice well (respectively 14% and 33% of snap
trap captures) but jumping mice poorly.

Type IB: Very small pitfalls without fences. These always are arranged in
transects. Hudson and Solf (1958) were early proponents of this concept. They used
1.4 liter, 10 cm diameter water-charged pitfalls without fences for removal trapping
in Washington. Their pitfalls caught long-tailed shrews and juvenile Peromyscus
and voles reasonably well, but other mammals poorly.

In northern Ontario, Innes and Bendell (19^) used very shallow (12 cm depth)
alcohol-charged pitfalls without drift fences in comparison with Victor snap traps
and Longworth live traps. The small snap traps made the best showing, with 16.5
mammals per 100 trap nights. The shallow pitfalls were the poorest, with only 8.1
mammals per 100 trap nights. The pitfalls caught the only pygmy shrews, but caught
no jumping mice and only a few deer mice and red-backed voles. The small snap
traps caught the most deer mice, voles, and jumping mice. They even bettered the
pitfalls in shrew captures, 10.6 to 7.7 per 100 traps.

In a statewide study of distribution of the southeastern shrew (Sorex lon^rostris)
in Virginia (Pagels and Handley 1989), Pagels used 16 ounce (approximately 1/2
hter) beer cans, only 6.2 cm in diameter, in transects along highways. In 24 months

22

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

FIGURE 1. Diagrams of various configurations of pitfalls. lA.-Without drift fences: Large pitfalls in
a grid and large pitfalls in a transect. 2A.-Without drift fence: Small pitfalls in a transect. IB.-With drift
fences: Large pitfalls in a triad, with closed center; large pitfalls in a triad, with open center, and large
pitfalls along a continuous fence. 2B.-With drift fences; Small pitfalls in triads in a transect.

these little cans, charged with hquid but without fences, caught 6 species of shrews,
including 73 southeastern shrews at 33 of 107 locahties within this shrew’s potential
range in Virginia. Granted that 55 of the localities were in the mountains where the
southeastern shrew seems to be irregularly distributed, and although the small cans
served their purpose, still the take was less than would have been expected in larger
pitfalls.

Mitchell et al. (in press) compared capture rates of 3.8 hter pitfalls with drift
fences and isolated 1/2 hter pitfalls in swamp forest in southeastern Virginia. The
larger pitfalls caught 11 species; the smah pitfaUs only four. However, the capture
rates of smaU shrews were similar with the two trapping methodS”0.68/100 trap
nights in large pitfahs; 0.40/100 trap nights in smah isolated pitfaUs.

The most practical way to use type IB pitfalls is in transects. They are too small
to be used effectively in isolation or in grids. They would be more effective in
transects if upgraded to 11 cm, 2 hter plastic bottles in place of 6.5 cm, 1/2 hter beer
cans. One the virtues of the 1/2 hter can is that it can be so quickly and easily
implanted with a foot-operated bulb planter. However, not much would be lost in
speed cmd ease using a 12 cm posthole digger to implant the 2 hter pitfaU.

HISTORY OF PITFALL TRAPPING

23

Type 2A: Very large arrays of moderate to large size pitfalls with drift fences
arranged in triads, with or without a central gap. Briese and Smith (1974) were the
first to use drift fences on a grand scale. They compared captures of small mammals
for about a year in a live trap grid and in very large (39 liter) dry pitfalls beside a
continuous drift fence around a 3.6 ha old field in South Carolina. With such large
pitfalls they might have sampled the whole fauna up to the size of squirrels and
opossums. In fact, the pitfalls captured twelve species and the live traps only eight.
Superiority of the pitfalls in capturing insectivores and the harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis) was overwhelming, respectively 398 to 8 and 93 to 7 for
the year. Because the pitfalls were dry, adult cotton rats {Sigmodon hispidus)^
cotton mice {Peromyscus gossypinus), and house mice {Mus musculus) could leap
or scramble out. Thus, the pitfalls sampled the insectivores and harvest mice and a
younger segment of the population of some rodents better than the live traps did.

Bury and Corn (1987) experimented with drift fences of various lengths and
concluded that the minimum effective length is between 2.5 m and 5 m. An 11 m
gap in the center of each of their triads of pitfalls with 2.5 m drift fences rendered
them as ineffective as triads of pitfalls without fences in comparison with triads of
pitfalls with 5 m fences and a 6 m central gap. Short fences converging in the center
as Williams and Braun’s (1983) and Kalko and Handley’s (in press) did are more
effective.

Pagels et al. (1992) used 19 liter pitfalls in 20 m triads (5 m drift fences with a
10 m central gap) for comparing the small mammal faimas of forests and clear cuts.
Their capture rate in a year of sampling was 17/100 trap mights. Small shrews
accounted for 28.3% and jumping mice for 16% of total captures.

The 25 m diameter triad array without a central gap proposed by Kirkland and
Sheppard (in press) as a standard for pitfall trapping evolved from the experiments
of Bury and Corn (1987). It is designed to sample shrews and voles in large numbers.
If the model is faithfully copied as Kirkland and Sheppard advised, capture data
should be interchangeable among projects.

Type 2B: Compact arrays of small pitfalls with drift fences configured in a triad,
without a central gap, arranged in transects. Trapping in California, Williams and
Braun (1983) used a pitfall array with a triad of 1.2 m, 10 cm high drift fences,
converging at a single central 7.6 liter pitfall. This small array caught long-tailed
shrews and jumping mice well, but other mice and voles poorly.

Handley and Yarn (in press) described the successful use of compact pitfall
arrays in transects in South Carolina to capture the long-tailed shrew Sorex
longirostris in swamp settings. Handley and Yarn’s array consisted of a triad of 1.2
m drift fences, 30 cm high, converging at a central 3.8 liter pitfall. A pair of 2 liter
pitfalls were situated on either side, near the end of each drift fence. The arraythus
consisted of seven pitfalls in a triad with a diameter of about 2.5 m. The pitfalls were
partly filled with preservative.

We have extended the Handley- Yarn concept by combining transects of com¬
pact pitfall arrays with equivalent transects of Museum Special snap traps to sample
the entire small mammal fauna (Kalko and Handley in press). Although the
literature has many examples of comparisons of pitfall captures with captures of
other types of traps (e.g., Clarke 1938; Briese and Smith 1974; Williams and Braun
1983; Innes and Bendell 1988; Mitchell et al. in press) our paper is the only one that

24

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

describes the combination of transects of snap traps and pitfall arrays with compa¬
rable sampling characteristics. That is, the results of transects of pitfall arrays and
snap traps demonstrate such close equivalence that we venture to combine capture
results of the two trapping methods in a single analysis to estimate species diversity
and relative abundance of the small mammal fauna as a whole. Other methods do
not assess all the species of the fauna or do not assess relative abundance equally
well for all species.

We think that our model has ideal dimensions to give a balanced pictme of
diversity and relative abundance of the small mammal fauna as a whole because
each trapping method balances out the inequities of the other. In the configuration
we used, the pitfall arrays capture long-tailed shrews and jumping mice and few if
any mice, voles or short-tailed shrews. The snap trap transects capture mice, voles,
and short-tailed shrews, but few long-tailed shrews and jumping mice. Larger
pitfalls, longer drift fences, or closer spacing of arrays are likely to oversample
shrews or add more species, thus making the comparison with snap trap transects
more difficult.

Further comments on the compact pitfall array
The experiments of Williams and Braun (1983) in California with pitfall arrays
similar to ours, suggest that comparable size and configuration of the array lead to
universally similar results. In their pitfalls 12% of captures was a long-tailed shrew
(Sorex trowbridgii) and 12% was a jumping mouse (Zapus princeps). In our pitfalls
of captures was the long-tailed shrew Sorex cinereus and 10% was jumping
mice {Zapus hudsonius and Napeozapus insignis). Deer mice {Peromyscus
maniculatus) made up only 7% of Williams and Brauns’ captures; 0% of ours. In
Williams and Brauns’ snap traps, jmnping mice and shrews together made up 4%
of captures (6% in ours) and deer mice 96% (60% in ours).

In comparison with the much larger pitfall arrays of Bury and Corn (1987), with
30 m of drift fence face (length of fence x 6), our compact arrays with only 7.2 m of
fence face caught available species more quickly (71% in the first seven days versus
40% in ten days) but caught proportionately fewer individuals, 219 versus 924.
Reduced to equivalent fence face, our pitfalls had about 2% capture success; Bury
and Corn’s about 3%. We trapped with the handicap of a severe drought which
undoubtedly limited our success. In our opinion, the 6 m gap in the center of Buiy
and Corn’s arrays greatly reduced their capture success. We routinely found a
majority of specimens in the central pitfall in our arrays.

To summarize, the compact arrays of pitfalls have proven to be efficient for
capturing small mammals. They are quickly and easily set, cause so little distur¬
bance to habitat that start-up time is negligible, and, in combination with compa¬
rable transects of snap traps, sample the whole small mammal fauna. Two or 3
persons can set a 100 pitfall transect of 14 arrays in 6 - 8 hours. Setting a transect
of 100 snap traps as described in Kalko and Handley (in press), requires 1-3 hours
with 1 or 2 persons, depending on habitat.

Therefore, larger pitfall arrays are not necessary for a detailed assessment of a
small mammal fauna. Larger arrays clearly have the advantage of sampling a much
larger area and a larger variety of species than compact arrays but this makes it
more difficult to compare the results of the pitfalls and other trapping methods.
Larger arrays also have the disadvantage of being costly in time and labor to set.

HISTORY OF PITFALL TRAPPING

25

and they cause environmental disturbance to the extent that they are not fuUy
functional until several days after setting.

The ideal sampling technique intermingles a pair of snap trap and compact
pitfall transects for two nights. The information gained with the compact pitfall
arrays, used in combination with snap traps, makes them the method of choice when
the objective of trapping is both qualitative and quantitative assessment of the
whole small mammal fauna. After two nights, when the snap traps are removed, the
pitfalls may be operated for at least another week, preferably longer, because they
continue to yield useful information with little additional expenditure of time and
effort for maintenance and specimen removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the four pitfall methods in current use serves a special purpose. Thus,
choice of method should depend on the objective of trapping.

Objective 1: Inventory of species of the whole small mammal fauna of an area.

Choice: Type lA. Very large pitfalls without fences, used in a grid or a transect.

Comments: Excellent for inventory of species diversity of small mammals.
Because some species are more prone to capture by pitfalls than others, capture
data are not useful in studies of relative abundance of the whole small mammal
fauna. Digging in large pitfalls can be difficult. The large pitfalls require large
amounts of preservatives if not monitored frequently. There is some danger of
injury to larger mammals accidentally stepping into the pitfalls.

Objective 2: Inventory and assessment of distribution of species of shrews.

Choice: Type IB. Very small pitfalls without fences, used in transects along
roads.

Comments: Samples only small shrews, but excellent for determining presence
or absence of various species in a large area. Exceptionally quick and easy to set.

Objective 3: Analysis of shrew and vole faimas of an area.

Choice: Type 2A. Very large arrays of moderate size pitfalls with drift fences
arranged in triads.

Comments: Samples part of the small mammal fauna very well (long-tailed
shrews, short- tailed shrews, and voles), giving information on ^versity of species
and relative abundance for that fraction of the fauna. Because of difference in scale,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to combine capture results with results of other
trapping methods such as snap traps or live traps. Costly in labor and time to set
up. Disturbance to habitat delays startup time. Difficult to site in some habitats.
Because of size, configuration in grids or transects may be difficult.

Objective 4: Analysis of the whole small mammal fauna of an area, considering
both diversity and relative abundance of species.

Choice: Type 2B. Compact arrays of small pitfalls with drift fences configured
in triads, arranged in a transect, intermingled with an equivalent transect of snap
traps.

Comments: Analyzes the whole small mammal fauna, yielding information on
both diversity and relative abundance of species. Requires two trapping methods
operated parallel to each other, but the expense of time required for set-up is
modest. This sampling method is not limited by habitat type.

26

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

ACKNOmEDGEMENTS

Final note.-Data analysis, writing, and field work for this paper were shared

equally by the authors.

LITERATURE CITED

Briese, L. A., and M. H. Smith. 1974. Seasonal abundance and movement of nine
species of small mammals. J. Mamm. 55:615-629.

Bury, R. B., and P. S. Corn. 1987. Evaluation of pitfall trapping in northwestern
forests: trap arrays with drift fences. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 51:112-119.

Clarke, C. H. D. 1938. A study of the mammal population of the vicinity of Pancake
Bay, Algoma District, Ontario. Nat. Mus. Canada. Bull. 88:141-152.

DeMott, S. L., and G. P. Lindsey. 1975. Pygmy shrew, Microsorexhoyi, in Gimnison
County, Colorado. Southwestern Nat. 20:417-418.

Handley, C. O., Jr., and M. Yarn. In press. The trapline concept apphed to pitfall
arrays. In J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland, Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.. Proceedings
of the International Colloquium on the Biology of the Soricidae. Spec. Publ.,
Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. no. 1611.

Howard, W. E., and E. M. Brock. 1%1. A drift-fence pit trap that preserves
captured rodents. J. Mamm. 42:386-391.

Hudson, G. E., and J. D. Solf. 1959. Control of small mammals with sunken-can
pitfalls. J. Mamm. 40:455-457.

Imler, R, H. 1945. BuUsnakes and their control on a Nebraska wildlife refuge. J.
Wildlife Mgmt. 9:265-273.

Innes, D. G. L., and J. F. Bendell. 1988. Sampling of small mammals by different
types of traps in northern Ontario, Canada. Acta Theriologica 33:443-450.

Kalko, E. K. V., and C. O. Handley, Jr. 1992. Comparative studies of small mammal
populations with transects of snap traps and pitfah arrays in southwest Virginia.
Virginia J. Sci. 44: 3-18.

Kirkland, G. L., Jr., and P. K. Sheppard. In press. Proposed standard protocol for
pitfall sampling of small mammal communities. //z J. F. Merritt, G. L. Kirkland,
Jr., and R. K. Rose, eds.. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the
Biology of the Soricidae. Spec. Publ., Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. no. 1611.

Llewellyn, L. M. 1942. Notes on the Alleghenian least weasel in Virginia. J. Mamm.
23:439-441.

Mitchell, J. C., S. Y. Erdle, and J. F. Pagels. In press. Evaluation of capture
techniques for amphibian, reptile, and small mammal communities in satu¬
rated forested wetlands.

Pagels, J. F., and C. O. Handley, Jr. 1989. Distribution of the southeastern shrew,
Sorex longirostris Bachman, in western Virginia. Brimleyana 15:123-131.

Pagels, J. F., S. Y. Erdle, K. L. Uthus, and J. C. Mitchell. 1992. Small mammal
diversity in forested and clearcut habitats in the Virginia Piedmont. Virginia J.
Sci. 43(113):171-176.

Prince, L. A. 1941. Water traps capture the pigmy shrew {Microsorex hoyi) in
abundance. Canadian Field Nat. 55:72.

Williams, D. F., and S. E. Braun. 1983. Comparison of pitfall and conventional traps
for sampling small mammal populations. J. Wildlife Mgmt. 47:841-845.

Virginia Journal of Science
Volume 44, Number 1
Spring 1993

The Center for Systematics Collections at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, (1973-1991)

Michael Kosztarab, Virginia Museum of Natural History at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0542
ABSTRACT

The Virginia Academy of Science promoted the idea of a state museum of
natural history with the appointment of an ad hoc committee to study the
matter in 1968. However, twenty years elapsed before the Virginia General
Assembly passed legislation approving a state museum. On March 4, 1988,
the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville was designated as
the state museum of natural history, with branches to be set up in Blacksburg
and Charlottesville. This article accounts the joint efforts of the many
Virginia scientists who actively participated in establishing the museum.

The efforts toward estabhshing a Center for Systematics Collections at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) came about
through realization by professors teaching courses in systematics at Virginia Tech
that there was a void in knowledge of the biota of Virginia. For example, only one
book on mammals of Virginia was in print (Handley and Patton, 1947). Also,
before the 1960’s, only one manual was available on invertebrates; this for the 154
species and subspecies of butterflies of Virginia (Clark and Clark, 1951). To
remedy the situation, two series of research bulletins were initiated at Virginia
Tech: one on scale insects in 1967 (Yang and Kosztarab, 1967) and another, "The
Insects of Virginia," in 1969 (Kosztarab, 1969). The latter series was begun in
collaboration with R. L. Hoffman (Hoffman, 1969). Perry C. Holt further ex¬
panded these efforts by organizing a series of three symposia dealing with the
distribution of invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants in the Southern Appalachians
(Holt et al., 1969, 1971; Holt and Paterson, 1970).

In 1968, Holt and Kosztarab were appointed by Paul B. Siegel, president of the
Virginia Academy of Science, to serve on an ad hoc Committee on the Museum of
Science (CMS) for Virginia, and to provide recommendations on the feasibility of
a museum to the State Museum of Science Study Commission of the Virginia
General Assembly. This Commission held pubhc hearings in Virginia on the
museum issue. Kosztarab chaired a subcommittee for planning and organizing a
symposium on the State Museum of Science during the May 1969 meetings of the
Virginia Academy of Science. As a result of these efforts, the Science Museum of
Virginia was established in Richmond during 1977. Unfortunately, the State
Museum of Natural History proposed by the committee members to be established
near or at Virginia Tech was not acted on until 1989. Kosztarab was asked by the
committee (CMS) chair, E. S. Harlow, to develop plans for an insect zoo for the
museum that could be part of the future Natural History Museum in Virginia. He
did so, and the plans are still available for implementation.

Attention was drawn to the neglected natural history collections at Virginia
T ech, by a series of articles in local papers such as The Montgomery News Messenger

28

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

(July 8 and July 24, 1969), and in the July and August 1969 issues of Techgram.
These valuable collections were scattered in different locations, were often inac¬
cessible to students and researchers, and were badly in need of work though they
were without any curatorial staff. The eight collections in 1969 included fish, birds,
mammals, branchiobdelUd worms, insects, flowering plants, animal fossils, and
minerals and rocks. Today we can add to these a sizable plant fossil collection, a
gem collection, and a fungus collection. The last was expanded from several packets
in 1970 to the current 26,000 specimens.

Activities in systematic biology at Virginia Tech were rejuvenated with the
participation of P.C. Holt and M. Kosztarab in the symposium and workshop,
"Systematic Biology - The Development of a National Program on Resources and
Resource Management," held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington,
D. C., July 6-8, 1972. The Association of Systematics Collections (ASC) was
initiated at this meeting, with Virginia Tech among its first member organizations.
Simultaneously, it appeared practical to formalize our own systematics collection-
related activities. Therefore, with an initial allocation of $1,000 from the Research
Division of Virginia Tech, the Center for Systematics Collections (CSC) was
estabhshed at Virginia Tech in August 1973. Perry C. Holt, Professor of Zoology,
was selected to serve as the first director of the CSC, and Curtis S. Adkisson as
Assistant Director, to be assisted by an Advisory Committee from the faculty, with
the stipulation that the directorship would be rotated among the curators of the
major collections. Professor Holt initiated an active program to improve the
maintenance and support for the collections. One of his first activities included a
proposal for the preparation of a paperback book, "Manual for the Collections of
Natural History Specimens." He requested assistance from 27 faculty and gradu¬
ate students to prepare the needed manuscripts. This good idea has not been
completed to date. In February 1974 a three member Visiting Scientist Committee
from the Association of Systematics Collections evaluated the status of the Virginia
Tech Natural History Collections (Dickinson et al., 1974). They noted that while
there were very productive and important research programs in systematics at
Virginia Tech, a very serious space problem existed for the collections.

In May the next year (1975) the Virginia Tech curators organized and hosted
the annual meeting of the ASC. Curtis S. Adkisson, then associate director of the
center, served as chairman of the local arrangements committee. A number of
colleagues from the ASC visited various collections during their time on campus.

Perry Holt resigned his duties as Director in March 1976. He had suffered
some disappointing setbacks because of lack of sufficient funding from Virginia
Tech for the CSC and because of disagreements with the proposed poUcy of
placing under the director's control the operations of the different collections at
Virginia Tech. Richard K. Bambach was appointed on April 29 to succeed him,
with Duncan M. Porter serving as Associate Director. Their initial two-year term
in 1978 was extended to an indefinite time.

Bambach held several curator’s meetings in 1976-77 and 1977-78, but no insti¬
tutional progress could be made. There was no potential for cooperation among
the departments in which the collections were lodged because of distrust remaining
from the ill-fated proposal in 1976 on operation of the CSC. Bambach did keep
Virginia Tech visible on the national systematics scene by participating in the ASC

CENTER FOR SYSTEMATICS COLLECTIONS

29

national meetings at Chicago, Illinois (1977), San Diego, California (1978), Cam¬
bridge, Massachusetts (1979), and Toronto, Canada (1980) and by serving on the
ASC Membership Committee from 1977 to 1980. Collection care at Virginia Tech
continued to be difficult, and the fish, amphibian, and reptile collections in the
Department of Biology were transferred to the American Museum of Natural
History during Bambach’s temu*e as Director of the CSC, because the Department
of Biology elected to discontinue curatorial care and maintenance of the wet
collections, and because no other resomces could be obtained within the University
at that time. The fish collection, built by Robert D. Ross, was one of the largest in
the eastern United States. When the Research Division (under David Roselle)
stopped paying the University’s membership dues to the ASC (and even billed
Bambach — a tenured professor — personally for his office telephone!), Bambach
realized that further effort on behalf of the CSC was futile in the climate of the
time.

In 1981 the Department of Entomology, at the request of Department Head
Sidney L. Poe, with the assistance of the entire faculty and led by a five-member
committee, evaluated the insect collections of the department. The 32-page report
(Voshell et al., 1981) strongly urged the administration to hire a full-time curator
and to continue supporting the maintenance of the valuable collections. Because
increased support did not materialize from the University, a two-year NSF grant
was requested in 1983 and was received. It provided $48,000 for urgently needed
improvements in the insect collections, such as new cabinets and drawers, and with
the help of Stephen Bullington, the entire collection was upgraded during 1984-85.

The Center received minimal funding from the Research Division, and even the
$1,000 yearly allocation was discontinued when Virginia Tech faced budget cuts
during fiscal year 1979-80. After falling behind in paying membership dues to the
Association of Systematics Collections, Director Bambach, in a letter of March 20,
1984 sent to A. W. Steiss, Director of the Research Division, expressed concern
about the lack of support for the Center from the Administration. He suggested
the reactivation of the Center with appointment of a new director and an initial
yearly allotment of approximately $2,000. He further proposed that M. Kosztarab
assist with the reactivation. Bambach also suggested the formation of a represen¬
tative Committee from active faculty in the interested three departments, to
include Porter from Biology, Kosztarab from Entomology, and himself from
Geology. Kosztarab was asked to represent Virginia Tech at the 1984 ASC annual
meetings in Urbana, Illinois.

In December 1984, a meeting was called by Gary Hooper, Vice Provost for
Research and Graduate Studies, that included Hooper, Steiss, Bambach, Porter,
and Kosztarab. It was suggested that back membership dues to ASC ($900 for
1983-84) probably would be forgiven if we would make a new commitment in 1985.
It was a^eed that the systematics collections community should build credibility
with positive action and that both the University and Blacksburg could benefit
from an active Center. Kosztarab reported that from his impressions received at
the last two ASC meetings and from federal offices in Washington, there was a
renewed interest in supporting activities related to the environment, and the
Center could well fill some of the existing void at Virginia Tech. Gary Hooper

30

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

requested that the curators put together for him a short assessment of each
collection, including grant money or other outside or departmental support re¬
ceived and research either completed or imder way that was associated with the
collections, during the past five years. He also needed information on what uses
were being made of the collections, the amount of labor utilized to maintain them,
and the available space for each collection. During the meeting an assessment was
made of which departments had natural history collections and who was in charge
of such material. Bambach was entrusted to collect, summarize, and submit the
reports to Hooper. It was apparent that the Virginia Tech Administration,
through Hooper, honestly wanted to remedy the situation. Hooper's comments
gave the impression that the data requested could help to make a case for including
our need for a museum building in the major fund raising campaign of the
University with a target of $50 million. Somehow our report never reached the
appropriate officials, and although the university fund raising was very successful
(reaching 112 million dollars), dreams of a natural history museum building were
not realized at this time.

The Research Division paid the 1985 ASC dues ($500) late in 1984. Kosztarab
was invited to the 1985 ASC annual meeting in Los Angeles, to serve as moderator
and to make a presentation on the progress of the National Biological Survey
project (Kosztarab, 1986). Kosztarab was also asked in 1985 by Noel T. Boaz,
Director of the privately supported new Virginia Museum of Natural History
(VMNH), to serve on its Scientific Advisory Board, and did so until Boaz dissolved
the Board in 1988. Kosztarab's membership on the board provided a direct link
to the VMNH from the Virginia Tech faculty and the natural history collections.
Boaz and Kosztarab agreed that they would work together toward a state-sup¬
ported VMNH located in Blacksburg and Martinsville.

During 1986, the Museum Study Committee (MSC), chaired by Kosztarab, was
formed. The MSC had a number of meetings with administrators and attempted
successfully to resurrect interest in the neglected natural history collections at
Virginia Tech. After an inventory of the collections had been prepared, an
assessment was made of the urgent needs of the nine collections, such as storage
space, fireproof housing, maintenance, etc. On December 5, 1986, in a six-page
letter, recommendations were made to Vice Provost Gary Hooper to regard the
Collections as analogous to a hbrary, to support them as an institutional resource,
and to provide a museum building for the appropriate housing of the material. It
was also suggested that if no immediate help was possible from Virginia Tech, we
should join efforts with Noel Boaz through some institutional affihation to obtain
needed funds from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Re¬
sources, a new funding source for Virginia Tech.

On Kosztarab's request, Orson K. Miller, Curator of Fimgi, represented Vir¬
ginia Tech at the 1987 ASC Annual Meeting in Gainesville, Florida, while
Kosztarab served as a Technical Advisor for a State Legislative Subcommittee
during 1987, studying a course of action on VMNH. A number of important
meetings were held during 1987 between Boaz, the Virginia Tech Museum Study
Committee, and Gary Hooper.

Several articles were printed in the Roanoke Times & World News, Colle^ate
Times and Spectrum dealing with the plight of the natural history collections at

CENTER FOR SYSTEMATICS COLLECTIONS

31

Virginia Tech and the desirability of having a museum building. In June 1987,
Kosztarab was appointed by Acting Provost John M. Perry to serve as Director of
the CSC and, on Kosztarab’s recommendation, Stephen E. Scheckler was asked
to serve as Associate Director.

Virginia Tech President William E. Lavery, in a letter of August 10, 1987 to Noel
Boaz, director of VMNH, expressed the university's endorsement for the concept
of a state-supported Virginia Museum of Natinal History that would affiliate with
the "Virginia Tech Natmal History Musemn, a branch of the overall museum."
Boaz used this letter as part of his legislative packet for the General Assembly’s
Subcommittee studying the feasibility of designating VMNH as the State Museum
of Natural History under the Secretary of Natural Resources.

Dming November 1987, copies of resolutions in support of a Natural History
Museum at Virginia Tech were passed by the Blacksburg Town Council, the Board
of Supervisors of Montgomery County, The Greater Blacksburg Chamber of
Commerce, and the Blacksburg Host Lions Club. Supporting letters for this effort
were received from December 1987 through February 1988 from Virginia Tech
Dean and Interim President Paul E. Torgerson, Congressman Rick Boucher, and
Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, John W. Daniel, II.

The 100th Anniversary of the initiation of the Natural History Collections of
Virginia Tech was celebrated on December 10, 1987 with a 20 meter-long exhibit
in the Newman Library and with a reception in the Alumni Hall, where President
William Lavery was presented with a giant trilobite fossil for his support to the
natural history collections at Virginia Tech. At the same reception, a museum
building model and blueprints were displayed. These had been prepared at no
cost by graduate students working with Professor Hans Rott of the College of
Architecture.

Dining 1988 a number of newspaper articles appeared about the history and
inventory of the Virginia Tech Natural History collections. During January and
March, alone, six newspaper articles in Blacksburg, Roanoke, Martinsville, and
Richmond dealt with our museum effort. A logo was designed (Figure 1) and
adopted for the Center, and many CSC meetings were held. Also Scheckler and
Kosztarab, with input from the entire Museum Committee, prepared a number of
documents on topics such as the proposed relationship and agreement between
Virginia Tech natural history collections and VMNH (Jan. 30), curatorial appoint¬
ments (May 3), proposed timetable for progress (1988-91) with the Virginia Tech
MuseunVVMNH effort, budget plans and requests for 1988-89 FY. These were
forwarded to Vice Provost Gary Hooper. Also, the Center and Hooper negotiated
an organizational format with Director Boaz, who was granted Adjunct Associate
Professor status by the Biology Department. Scheckler represented the CSC at
the Annual Meeting of the ASC in Chicago on May 11-13, 1988.

Joint efforts with VMNH bore fruit on March 4 when the Virginia General
Assembly designated VMNH as the official state museum of natural history with
an initial $5 million grant for the museum included in Governor Baliles’ 1988-89
budget.

The CSC at Tech received $15,000 for operations for 1988-89; 57% of this was
distributed to the nine collections for maintenance and cataloging. In addition,
Hoffman and Kosztarab obtained a $21,000 grant from the Non-Game Program

32

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

of the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries, to inventory the invertebrate faima of
Virginia. VMNH allotted $100,000 for the maintenance of the Virginia Tech
natural history collections for the 1988-89 fiscal year after a final agreement was
signed on our affiliation as a Branch with VMNH. Scheckler led the effort to
prepare a document on institutional commitment of Virginia Tech to VMNH that
was revised several times until all parties agreed on the final text. Meanwhile, over
a year of work and negotiations were needed before the agreement was signed in
1989.

Virginia Tech's Newman Library needed more space for storage of pre-1950
documents in the former Cheds Store building; it requested from the administration
use of the adjoining space then occupied by the Bailey-Law vertebrate collection.
Because the location and the building were not adequate for storing this valuable
collection, our curators agreed to move it as soon as a better space could be found.
With help from Vice Provost Gary Hooper, the former Studio I theater building
at 428 N. Main Street was selected in January 1989 on a three-year lease, for
temporary housing of the zoological collections and for displaying natural history
exhibits for the public. An Adjunct Professor status was granted in May in the
BiologyDepartmenttoMichaelW.Hager, Director of VMNH. It was agreed that
similar adjunct status could be extended to all curators at VMNH and by VMNH
to aU Virginia Tech professors-curators as a reciprocal arrangement. Richard L.
Hoffman already had such a title in the Entomology Department. Kosztarab asked
Scheckler to continue his valuable work from then on, as co-director of the CSC.

A Mission Statement of the Virginia Tech museum branch was unanimously
adopted by members of the Museum Study Committee on April 11, 1989. It stated:
"The purpose of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Museum of Natural History is to promote science through research, edu¬
cation, and extension, and to inventory, catalogue, interpret, and conserve
our natural heritage. Our special mission is to support natural history
research and education for the university community."

A workshop and symposium was organized at the Virginia Tech campus on the
Virginia's Endangered Species, April 28-29, 1989. The curators from the Center
actively participated, some with major talks and others with contributions that were
collected and published in a book, Virginia's Endangered Species (Terwilliger,
1991). The proceedings of two other symposia that dealt with the status of the
systematics of insects and arachnids of North America were printed at Virginia
Tech (Kosztarab and Schaefer, 1990) as part of the CSC's national effort.

The Studio I theater was remodeled during spring and summer 1989 to fit the
needs of the zoology collections and to provide two halls for public exhibits, with
offices for the management, staff, and curators. As a basis for the first museiun
exhibit a set of wall charts on 'Biodiversity Endangered" was ordered from the
Smithsonian by Kosztarab, who also asked Susan Eriksson to head an Exhibit
Committee consisting of all members of the CSC. The members agreed to provide
her with needed materials and help. Jack A. Cranford single-handedly prepared
the North American large mammals exhibit hall.

A proposal for a $105,000 grant supporting the establishment of the new
museum branch was submitted by the co-directors of CSC to VMNH in September
1989. Funding was received for one year. From this grant each of the nine

CENTER FOR SYSTEMATICS COLLECTIONS

33

collections received $5,140 for urgent upgrading , cataloging, and maintenance.
This funding was in addition to some equipment transfers that included a number
of new cabinets for bird and mammal storage, and two personal computers that
were provided for the bird and fungus collections. Because of limited funds, used
furniture was purchased from the Virginia Tech Central Stores Warehouse to fill
the most urgent needs in furnishing the empty rooms in the new museum building.
During the summer, the affiliation agreement was finalized, and it was signed in
the fall by administrators at Virginia Tech and VMNH.

A search was initiated to find a director for the new branch museum at Virginia
Tech, while Kosztarab and Scheckler were requested by Hooper in November 1989,
to serve as co-directors of the Branch and the Center until a director was ap¬
pointed.

The doors to the new museum were opened for the public on April 16, 1990 in
connection with Earth Week. About 700 people visited the museum in seven hours
during the first two days. The exhibit "Diversity Endangered" was well received by
both the imiversity and the public. Many school and civic groups visited before it
was taken by VMNH as a traveling exhibit to reach many communities in Virginia.

Because of the low budget allocation for FY 1990-91 ($190,000, with half used
for rent), a number of reductions had to be made, seriously damaging ability to
accomplish the original objectives. The museum had to rely on volunteers to keep
the exhibits open for the public, also to give up cataloging and preparation of new
exhibits. The curators agreed that essentials such as safe locks on doors, an alarm
system, and fire extinguishers had to be provided; also a collection exhibit manager
had to be employed, as soon as possible. An Executive Committee was formed for
the new museum branch in February 1990, to act on matters of urgency and of
general concern, until a Director was appointed.

Duncan Porter represented the Center at the Annual Meetings of the ASC in
Richmond, Virginia, during August 1990. Scheckler continued his efforts to obtain
official recognition and summer work appointments for the faculty curators. A
"contract" and a draft letter were circulated for input by curators and heads of the
departments concerned. The curators enthusiastically supported this effort, but
the idea received only lukewarm attention from administrators, who felt that with
the decreased budget, they might not be able to come up with needed funds for
smnmer employment of their faculty-curators. Scheckler resigned on July 1 from
his position as Associate and/or Co-director of the CSC. To avoid duplication of
efforts between the new museum and the Center, Kosztarab requested Associate
Provost Stout to redefine the role of the CSC and to change its name to "Center
for Systematics Studies."

Susan C. Eriksson was appointed Executive Director of the new Museum and
Michael Kosztarab was named its Founding Director in the summer of 1990.
Hooper requested Kosztarab to continue in the position as Director of the Center
until the future role of the Center was defined. An ad hoc Committee composed
of James R. Karr, Orson K. Miller, and Kosztarab (chair), was formed to evaluate
the future of the Center, recommended that the curators transfer the Center’s
function to the new museum after July 1, 1991, thus saving money and avoiding
duplication of effort. It became apparent that the Center’s major goals had been

34

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

met with the establishment of the Virginia Museum of Natural History at Virginia
Tech.

It is apparent from the above discussion that the Center served as an important
component in the establishment of a branch museum, by bringing together the
systematics community into a partnership with a common goal. The Center also
promoted the appropriate maintenance of the natural history collections, also
collection based research. I can proudly state that the curators of those collections
have an excellent record of accomplishments. During a ten-year period (1981-
1990), they supervised the graduate research, some of it collection based, of 67
students, research that resulted in 35 M.S. and 20 Ph.D. degrees at Virginia Tech.
They also published four books (four more were imder contract in 1991), six
monographs/bulletins, 34 book chapters, and 153 peer-reviewed journal articles.
With an additional 102 popular press articles, their publication record totaled 299,
not counting the 199 abstracts for professional meetings. They received peer
recognition in the form of 370 invitations to committees, symposia, seminars,
workshops, and other scholarly groups, and they generated $2,128,700 through 79
external grants/contracts. This record speaks for itself on what a talented and
hard-working group served on the committees of the CSC. The curators are listed
in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Curators and the Collections Under Their Care at the Virginia Museum of Natural History
at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Curators/ Assistants

Collections No. Specimens

Location

Orson K. Miller

Fungi

ca 26,000

Derring 3017A

Duncan M. Porter/
Thomas F. Wieboldt

Vascular plants

ca 90,000

Derring 3017A

Stephen E. Scheckler

Fossil plants

ca 10,000

Derring 3017B

J. Reese Voshell, Jr.,
Michael Kosztarab/
Mary H. Rhoades

Aquatic and terrestrial
insects and larvae

ca 874,500

428 N. Main St.

Curtis S. Adkisson

Birds

Bird egg sets

ca 19,500
ca 1,200

428 N. Main St.

Jack A. Cranford

Mammals

ca 6,500

428 N. Main St.

Richard K. Bambach/

S. Llyn Sharp

Fossil animals

ca 60,000

Derring 3061

Susan C. Eriksson

GRAND TOTAL

Rocks, minerals, and
gems

ca 20,000

1,108,000

Derring 2062

Specimens

CENTER FOR SYSTEMATICS COLLECTIONS

35

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express here my heartfelt thanks to each member of the Museum
Study Committee, composed of both faculty and staff associated with the natural
history collections, who served so diligently and later continued to serve on the
committee of the revitalized Center for Systematics Collections, which was later
absorbed into the Virginia Tech Museum of Natural History Committee. Through
the years, the curators and their associates spent many hours in meetings and
discussions, on committees, 2md in gathering data for the CSC and for the admin¬
istration. Often, without appropriate time allotment or credit, they curated the
natural history collections under their supervision at Virginia Tech. James R. Karr
and Hans C. Rott volunteered their expertise to our committees when we most
needed it. I am especially indebted to Mary Rhoades for much assistance during
the critical years that required much of her time in addition to her regular duties.
Last but not least, we are all indebted to Stephen Scheckler for serving as associate
director and later as co-director of the Center, and for preparing detailed minutes
of each meeting, budgets, and position papers that served as a base for a large part
of my summary here.

Gary Hooper, our "Godfather,” now at Brigham Young University, will always
be remembered for his enthusiastic help, moral support, and encouragement. And
we also recognize Ernest R. Stout, Vice Provost for Research, who is currently
overseeing our efforts for the museum.

I would like to recognize for their pioneering efforts, the first director of the
center, Perry C. Holt, and Richard K. Bambach, who followed in that position, with
Duncan M. Porter as associate director. Without their diligence and patience with
both the curators and the administrators at Virginia Tech, we could not have
achieved the high goals set for the Center. Members of the CSC and our other
committees, not already named, include S. Llyn Sharp, J. Reese Voshell, Jr., and
Thomas Wieboldt.

Linda Bland typed this text and helped to finalize it, after useful input from
former members of the Center. Mary C. Holliman reviewed the final manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, A. H. and L. F. Clark. 1951. The Butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, vol.116, no. 7. U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 239 p.

Dickinson, J. C., Jr., P. S. Humphrey and H. H. Ross. 1974. Report of the Present
Status and Future Potential of the Center for Systematics Collections at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Association of Systematics
Collections, Lawrence, Ks. Mimeographed, 16 p.

Handley, C. O., Jr. and C. P. Patton. 1947. Wild Mammals of Virginia. Richmond,
Va., Comm. Game and Inland Fisheries 220 p.

Hoffman, R.L. 1969. The Biotic Regions of Virginia. The Insects of Virginia No.

1, Part II. Blacksburg, Va., Va. Polytech. Inst. Res. Div. Bull. 48:23-62.

Holt, P. C. and R. A. Paterson, eds. 1970. The Distributional History of the Biota
of the Southern Appalachians -Part II: Flora. Blacksburg, Va., Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, Research Division Monograph 2: 414 p.

36

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Holt, P. C., R. L. Hoffman and C. W. Hart, Jr., eds. 1%9. The Distributional
History of the Biota of the Southern Appalachians -Part I: Invertebrates.
Blacksburg, Va., Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Research Division Mono¬
graph 1:295 p.

Holt, P. C.„ R. A. Paterson and J. P. Hubbard, eds. 1971. The Distributional
History of the Biota of the Southern Appalachians - Part III: Vertebrates.
Blacksburg, Va,, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Research Division Mono¬
graph 4: 306 p.

Kosztarab, M. 1969. The Insects of Virginia: No. 1— Introduction to the Series of
Bulletins on the Insects of Virginia, with a Literature Review. Blacksburg, Va.,
Va. Polytech. Inst. Res. Div. Bull. 48:1-21.

Kosztarab, M. 1986. Some of the Activities Leading to This Symposium. In
Foundations for a National Biological Survey. K. C. Kim and L. Knutson
(eds.). Assoc. Syst. Colls., Lawrence, Ks., Symposium, Los Angeles, (1985)
p. 23-27.

Kosztarab, M. and C. W. Schaefer, eds, 1990. Systematics of the North American
Insects and Arachnids: Status and Needs, Blacksburg, Va. Virginia Agricul¬
tural Experiment Station Information Series. 90-1: 247 p.

Terwilliger, K. (Coordinator) 1991. Virginia’s Endangered Species. Blacksburg,
Va., McDonald & Woodward PubHshing Company: 672 p.

Voshell, J. R., W. A. Allen, M. Kosztarab, D. E. Mullins and R. L. Pienkowski.
1981. Committee report: Evaluation of Insect Collections in the Department
of Entomology. Prepared for Department Head, Blacksburg, Va., Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Mimeographed, 32 p.

Yang, S. P. and M. Kosztarab. 1967. A Morphological and Taxonomical Study on
the Immature Stages of Antonina and of the Related Genera (Homoptera:
Coccoidea). Va. Polytech. Inst. Res. Div. Bull. 3:1-73.

FIGURE 1. Logo of the Center for Systematics Collections at Virginia Tech. It depicts the state
tree (dogwood), the state bird (cardinal), the state insect (tiger swallowtail butterfly) and the Vir¬
ginia white tail deer. Logo designed by Robert Turner, Jr. and Michael Kosztarab.

Virgima Journal of Science
Volume 44, Number 1
Spring 1993

Evaluation of Belgian Endive (Chicorium intybus) as an
Alternative Vegetable Crop^

Tadesse Mebrahtu^ and Jimmy Mullins
Virginia State University, Agricultural Research Station and
Cooperative Extension Service
ABSTRACT

Belgian endive {Chicorium intybus) is one of those crops that can grow with
residual nitrogen and has relatively few pest problems. Presently, little is
known on the culture of this crop in the United States, particularly in
Virginia and the Mid- Atlantic region. The objectives of this study were: 1)
to determine the effect of planting date on the root production of selected
endive cultivars and 2) to determine the efficiency of two methods of forcing
for chicon (a forced leaf head used as a vegetable) production. Three
cultivars (Bea, Flash, and Zoom) were planted in 1990 at three planting
dates (June 20, July 19, and August 13) in a split-plot design with four
replications at Randolph Research Farm of Vir^nia State University, Pe-
tersbmg, Virginia. Hi^y significant differences (P < 0.01) were observed
for number of seedlings, usable and unusable roots, and total fresh root
weight among the planting dates. Results have indicated that planting
endive cultivars around July 19 would produce better suited root stock for
chicon production than planting on either June 20 or August 13 planting
dates. Results from both Phase I and II productions indicate that the two
late maturing cultivars Bea and Flash were better adapted to Virginia
edaphic and climatic conditions and to hydroponic forcing than was the
middle early cultivar. Zoom. Similarly, Flash produced 41% and 51% more
chicon weight than did either Bea and Zoom in the soil method of forcing.
However, the chicon quahty from the hydroponic method of forcing was
better than that from the soU method.

INTRODUCTION

As fresh fruits and vegetables have become more important in the American
diet, growers are finding that American tastes are often varied; different ethnic
groups and different areas of the country demand different varieties of fruits and
vegetables. Innovative marketing strategies are often the secret to selling niche type
fruits and vegetables to these specialized markets.

In an effort to increase agricultural diversification opportunities for small scale
farmers in Virginia, new alternative crops that have market demand have to be
explored. One of the more promising alternative crops is Belgian endive also known
as chicory. In the United States 80% to 90% of the consumption of Belgian endive
is presently being imported. A conservative estimates of endive’s value is approx¬
imately $5.0 million per annum (Whitney and Corey, 1988).

1 Contribution of Virginia State University, Agricultural Research Station and Cooperative
Extension Service Journal Series No. 187.

2 Corresponding author, P. O. Box 9289, Petersburg, VA 23806. The use of any trade names
and/or vendors does not imply any approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that

may also be suitable

38

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Belgian endive requires little nitrogen fertilization, and has relatively few pest
problems. Its planting and harvesting do not coincide with that of other field crops;
and it is in demand as shown by increase in consumption. The endive is an
attractive vegetable, which can be prepared in many ways and utilizes relatively
little production input compared to other crops (Anon., 1985). Production of
endive occurs in two phases: root (Phase I) and chicon or marketable head (Phase
II). Producers who wish to produce just the roots can sell them to hydroponic
growers for Phase II production. The chicons then can be sold to wholesalers, chain
stores, and food service markets. It is projected that in Phase I production, endive
roots would bring $0.02 to $0.04 each, depending on quality and availability, and a
producer could expect to gross $ 3,000.00 to $ 4,500.00 ha"^. In Phase II production,
the chicons can sell from $10.00 to $17.50 wholesale per 4.55 kg box"^. Through
food service accounts, a 4.55 kg box”^ retails for $19.00 to $40.00 box'^. In addition,
endive roots are potential sources of various sugars (Chubey and Dorr el, 1977).
Since most of the endive presently consumed in the United States is imported, local
endive could be marketed at competitive prices. However, several major cultural
concerns must be addressed before it can be commercially grown successfully.

Presently, httle is known about the culture of endive as a crop in the United
States. As a wild plant it is found in Europe, in North Africa, and in Siberia to the
Baikel-Lake. Botanists have divided the family Chicorium in two species. One of
them is the Chicorium intybus, about which this study is concerned.

Endive was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century by a Belgian farmer who
advertently left chicory roots in the dark over winter (Hill, 1987; 1988). In the
spring, these roots had begun to re-sprout and produced the chicory heads, which
are now a popular vegetable in many countries. Its rise in popularity is demon¬
strated by the fact that imports from Belgium have increased nearly seven-fold,
from 440 tons in 1976 to more than 3,000 tons in 1983, as reported by the United
States Department of Agriculture. Today, endive is commonly found in markets
with other salad greens rather than in its former display among gourmet vegetables.

Hill (1987; 1988; 1989) tested several imported endive cultivars for adaptability
to Connecticut’s soil, climate, and two methods of forcing. From these studies he
concluded that endive can be successfully grown in diverse soils and in the climate
of Connecticut, and during the winter mature roots could be forced to produce
chicons.

Development of endive as a potential alternative crop provides a significant
value to farmers. However, before it is recommended to growers, extensive studies
should be done to provide information about all the essential cultural practices
under Virginia’s environmental conditions. The objectives of these studies re¬
ported here were: 1) to determine the effect of planting date on the yield and
quahty of root stock production of selected endive cultivars and 2) to determine
the efficiency of two methods of forcing for chicon production.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seed Bed Preparation

Belgian endive is a crop that requires a fine, firm, and well-drained soil with a
pH of 5.5 or higher. Based on soil test results, the fertilizers triple phosphate (P2O5)
and potash (K2O) were apphed at rates of 150 and 30 kg ha‘\ respectively.

BELGIAN ENDIVE AS ALTERNATIVE CROP

39

Nitrogen fertilizer was generally excluded, because too much nitrogen gives the
crop luxurious leaf growth, an irregular crop density, relatively small roots, and
loose chicons during forcing (HilL 1987). To raise the soil pH to 6.3, lime was
applied at the rate of 2,500 kg ha’^. In the middle of June raised beds (approxi¬
mately 75 cm apart, 20-23 cm in height and 30 cm across) were made and rolled to
create a firm seedbed.

Planting

Experiment I: During the 1990 growing season, two late cultivars, Bea and
Flash, and a middle early cultivar, 2^om were used. The experiment was arranged
in a split plot design with date of planting as the main-plot and cultivar as the
sub-plot. Each sub-plot in an experiment was replicated four times and consisted
of six-beds; each bed in a plot had double rows 6 m long and 3.75 m wide. The three
cultivars were planted on three separate dates (June 20, July 19, and August 13) on
Abell sandy loam (fine loamy mixed, thermic Aquatic Hypridults) soil, with Nibbex
precision planter. Spacing was 45 seeds per meter in double rows 7.5 cm apart;
later the seedlings were thinned to 3 plants per meter. Immediately following
planting, the preemergence herbicide, pronamide, was applied at 1.50 kg ha'^ and
the plots were irrigated. Gramaxone at 0.5 kg active ingreient (ai) ha"^ was applied
prior to the middle (July 19) and late (August 13) plantings. The postemergence
herbicide sethoxydim was also applied at the rate of one kg ai ha’^ to control grass
weeds. Plots were also hand weeded as needed. The plots were irrigated using
sprinkle irrigation as needed. Seedling emergence was recorded two weeks after
planting.

Experiment II: During the 1991 growing season, three cultivars (Bea, Flash,
and Zoom) were planted in a randomized complete block design with four repli¬
cations. Each plot in an experiment consisted of 8 beds (two rows per bed) each
6.1 m long and 4.25 m wide. The three cultivars were planted on 26 July 1991 at the
Virginia State University (VSU), Randolph Research Farm similar to the proce¬
dures described in Experiment I.

Maturity determination

Immature roots will not produce the desired tightly furled chicons and over¬
mature roots usually produce unmarketable multiple heads (Hill, 1988). Because
endive takes as few as 90 days or as many as 120 days to mature, roots were tested
for maturity periodically. Roots were randomly puUed from a meter-long row and
immediately placed in plastic bags and transported to the laboratory. Roots were
washed, cleaned, and separated according to the diameter size. Top roots < 1.5
cm in diameter (unusable roots) were discarded; those >1.5 cm in diameter
(usable) were kept for further processing. Ten roots were taken at random and
weighed and cut cross-wise into a one-inch slice rings. The total weight of the sliced
rings was recorded, and the rings were ovendried at 80°C. Root dry weight was
taken at 24 and 48 h, and percent dry weight was calculated. The root dry weight
for each planting date and cultivar was checked using the above procedure until 25
to 30 gram dry weight per root was obtained.

40

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Harvesting

Experiment I and II

Phase I production: At maturity, roots from the four middle beds of each six-bed
plot were harvested using a wing plow, which removed the roots from the groimd
at a depth of 30 cm on November 15, December 6, and December 12, for Jime 20,
July 19 and August 13 planting dates, respectively. The roots were harvested and
cut to a uniform length (15 cm); leaves were trimmed off to 2.5 cm above the crown.
The total root weight was recorded and presented as total fresh weight kg ha“^.
Then roots were separated into <1.5 cm (unusable) and >1.5 cm diameter
(usable) and were coimted and recorded as number of roots ha'^. Similarly, endive
roots from Experiment II were harvested on December 9, 1991 using the procedure
described in Experiment I.

Storage

Phase II production: The harvested roots from experiment II of each plot were
placed in a chicken-wire cage and stored in a growth chamber located at the M. T.
Carter Research Building of Virginia State University at 0± l^C for 59 days. The
roots were removed from cold storage and forced under two environmental condi¬
tions.

a) Hydroponic forcing- A table or trough that allowed for gravity flow of the
solution was constructed. A pump that circulated the nutrient solution throughout
the system was placed inside a 380 liter reservoir. A delivery line that allowed the
solution to get to the upper end of the table was placed. A catchment pipe that
delivered solution back to reservoir was also constructed. Boxes to hold roots were
made from plastic coated wire. The bimdle of roots (25-30) from each cultivar and
replication were put in these boxes and then placed on the table with continuous
flow of solution. The roots in the forcing table were allowed to equilibrate in water
for 2-3 days. After three days Peters solution fertilizer with 20 N-20 P2O5-2O K2O
at the rate of 0.6 ml per liter of water was added in the reservoir tank and pumped
into the table. The solution was continuously circulated to the roots and back to
the reservoir where it was aerated to bring oxygen in and if necessary reheated. The
roots were kept standing in approximately 3 cm of nutrient solution and never
allowed to dry out. The forcing room was kept completely dark and the tempera¬
ture and relative hiunidity were maintained at 18 ± 2 °C and at 80 ± 3, respectively
(Kruistum and Buishand, 1982). The air temperature in the room was kept at 3 to
4 lower than the nutrient temperature by ventilation system. The first chicons
were harvested sixteen days (March 16, 1992) after planting and at weekly intervals
thereafter. The emerging chicons were severed from the roots, weighed and results
are presented as kg ha"^.

b) Soil Forcing- Five endive roots of each cultivar and replication were planted
on February 29, 1992, in 5 hter-plastic pots containing a 75:25 (v/v) mixture of
metro-mix 220 (W. R. Grace and CO.) and Baccto potting soil (Michigan Peat Co.,
P. O. Box 980129; Houston, TX 77098). There were five plastic pots for each
cultivar and replication. The root stock and crowns were completely covered with
soil. Immediately after planting the roots were watered and fertilized at the rate of
0.6 ml of Peters 2ON-2OP2O5-2OK2O per hter of water weekly. The pots were then
placed in the same forcing room with the hydroponic forcing. On March 16, sixteen

BELGIAN ENDIVE AS ALTERNATIVE CROP

41

days after planting, the emerging chicons or marketable heads and their attached
roots were uncovered, roots severed and the outer leaves trimmed to remove
adhering soil. The chicons were weighed and presented as kg ha‘^.

Statistical Analysis: The data from E^^eriment I were analyzed as a split plot
design and the data from Experiment 11 as a randomized complete block design.
Means were separated using least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% probabil¬
ity level as described by Steel and Torrie (1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment 1

Phase I production: Generally, germination and the subsequent seedling estab¬
lishment of the cultivars were satisfactory. The analysis of variance showed signif¬
icant (P < 0.05) differences for number of seedlings among the three planting
dates. The mean number of seedlings for the late planting date was higher than
early and middle planting dates. The middle planting date had more number of
seedlings than the early planting.

Significant differences for unusable and usable roots were found among the
planting dates. The late planting date produced 90% and 88% more unusable roots
than the early and middle planting, respectively (Table 1). The middle planting
date had 4% and 21% more usable roots than the early and late planting dates,
respectively. These results indicate that planting endive cultivars between June 20
and July 19 would produce root stock more suitable for chicon production.

There were also significant differences for total root fresh weight among the
three planting dates with the greatest fresh root weight obtained from early planting
date. Although, the early planting date had the most root fresh weight and the least
unusable roots, root size in early planting was too large to be used for forcing,
because large roots produce multiple heads per root which are unmarketable. The
middle planting date (July 19) appeared to be the best time to plant endive to
produce ideal root size for forcing. Among the cultivars tested, we feel that Flash
is the best choice for planting during July.

As we observed in our study, endive requires minimum management as com¬
pared to other vegetable crops. The crop performed well in poor soil with less than
1.5% humus content. Although we did not test the effects of nitrogen on root
production in this study, we believe that low nitrogen is the key for good production.
It is also observed to be relatively tolerant to drought. Because of its long tap root,
it can absorb moisture as deep as 90 cm. All these facts show that endive is a
low-input rotational crop which can be produced inexpensive in many areas of the
United States.

Experiment II

Phase I production: Germination and the subsequent seedling estabhshment of
the cultivars were very good. We did not observe any difference in germination
among the tested cultivars. Similarly, the analysis of variance showed that there
were no significant differences for roots < 1.5 cm in diameter (unusable roots)
among the tested cultivars (Table 2). However, significant differences for roots
with > 1.5 cm (usable roots) diameter were observed among the tested cultivars.
The cultivar Zoom produced the lowest 52,097 mean usable root yield and Flash

42

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

TABLE 1. Mean number of unusable* and usable * * roots, and total fresh root weight of Experiment
1, 1990.

Planting date

Cultivar

June 20

July 19

August 13

mean

Number of unusable roots ha'^

Bea

Flash

Zoom

24,355

27,221

20,057

16,476

30,086

37,249

286,532

183,380

233,526

109,121

80,229

96,944

Planting-

Mean 23,879

LSD(o.05) for planting date

27,937
= 51,769

234,450

—

Number of usable roots ha"^

Bea

Flash

Zoom

131,088

161,338

149,713

143,266

184,813

133,237

118,911

121,060

123,925

131,088

155,737

135,625

Planting-

Mean

LSD(0.05)

147,380

for planting date

153,772
= 19,494

121,300

—

Total fresh root weight Kg ha‘^

Bea

Flash

Zoom

28,947

29,410

26,263

21,995

21,700

19,200

14,689

14,731

13,847

21,877

21,947

19,770

Planting-

Mean 28,207 20,965

LSD (0.05) for planting date = 5,3^

14,422

—

*Root diameter < 1.5 cm
**Root diameter > 1.5 cm
***Cultivar mean

the highest 188,582 (Table 2). The cultivars Flash outyielded Bea and Zoom by
60% and 72%, respectively, and Bea outyielded Zoom by 34%.

Phase II production: The second phase of chicon or marketable head produc¬
tion includes root storage and then forcing. During cold storage the roots become
vernalized and flower induction is initiated (Hill, 1988). The term "forcing” includes
planting, growing, and harvesting chicons (marketable heads). Successful storage
of roots is the second measure of productivity. The roots of all cultivars from
experiment II stored well. At least 95% of the roots of most cultivars remained
viable for about 14 weeks after being placed in cold storage.

The production of chicon or marketable head (Phase II) in soil as well as in
nutrient solution is very common in European countries. The development of

BELGIAN ENDIVE AS ALTERNATIVE CROP

43

TABLE 2. Mean number of unusable* and usable * * roots of E?cperiment II, 1991,

Number of roots ha'^

Cultivar Unusable Usable

Bea

46,930

79,222

Zoom

22,712

52,097

Flash

43,486

188,582

Mean

37,709

106,634

LSD (0.05)

N.S

47,823

* Root diameter <1.5 cm

**Root diameter > 1.5 cm

multiple production systems for Belgian endive would give Virginia farmers addi¬
tional flexibility.

a) Hydroponic forcing: Recently, growing lettuce, tomatoes, and cucumber
hydroponically has been very successful at VSU. Similarly, culturing roots from
different endive cultivars in hydroponic solution to produce quality chicon is
receiving increasing interest among the VSU research scientists. Significant differ¬
ences in chicon mean weight were observed among the cultivars hydroponically.
The mean weights of Bea and Flash chicon were significantly more than those of
Zoom in the soil but not in hydroponic forcing method (Table 3). There were no
significant differences in chicon weight between Bea and Flash. The chicon mean
weight for cultivars forced hydroponically was 8,821 kg ha‘^ and ranged from 6,989
to 9,750 kg ha’^' The cultivar Bea and Flash produced about the same amount of
chicons, but their chicon weights were 28% higher than Zoom’s. Results from both
Phase I and II experiments indicated that the two late maturing cultivars Bea and
Flash are better adapted to Virginia conditions and to hydroponic forcing than the
middle early cultivar. Zoom.

b) Soil forcing: The cultivars forced in the soil responded somewhat similarly
to the hydroponic forcing (Table 3). The overall cultivar chicon mean yield was
12,681 kg ha"^ and ranged from 10,616 to 16,069 kg ha’^. The cultivar Flash
produced 41% and 51% more chicon weight than did Bea and Zoom, respectively.
Again, Flash seems to be well adapted to forcing in the soil. Therefore, farmers in
Virginia could successfully grow Flash and force the roots either in hydroponic
solution or in soil.

The overall mean weight of chicons that were forced in the soil were 43.8%
heavier than those forced hydroponically. The increased chicon weight is attrib¬
uted to an improved forcing techniques that maintained uniform temperature and
humidity in the soil than compared to hydroponic (Table 3).

Even though we found no significant forcing x cultivar interaction, cultivars Bea,
Zoom, and Flash produced 14%, 34%, and 39% more chicon weight in soil than in
hydroponic forcing. However, the quality (pale yellow, tight, and attractive) of
chicons forced hydroponically were better than those chicons forced in the soil,
because of fungus Pseudomonas marg^alis which discolored the chicons.

44

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

TABLE 3. Chicon (marketable head) yield from hydroponic and soil methods of forcing from
Bcperiment II, 1991.

Forcing Methods

Cultivar

Hydroponic

Soil

Cultivar Mean

kg ha"^

Bea

9,750

11,360

10,556

Zoom

6,989

10,616

8,803

Flash

9,725

16,069

12,897

Mean-

Forcing-

8,821

12,681

—

LSD(o.05) : Forcing methods = 2,574, Cultivar ^ = 3,152
Forcing Methods X cintivar interaction = N.S.

Several researchers have indioted that production of endive roots for forcing
is simple and relatively ine^ensive; however, storing and forcing roots require
careful control of temperature and relative humidity to produce quality chicons
that can compete with European imports. The VSU-grown chicons were judged
equal in quahty to imports, and the chicons from VSU were milder than imported
chicons which had aged in transit. The information obtained from these ej^eri-
ments will be useful to powers. We have shown that cultivars Bea or Flash could
be planted in eastern Virginia during the middle of July at 75 cm spacing between
rows, and can be harvested during the first week of December. This crop is a low
input vegetable crop that can be grown in rotation after small grain crops with no
or minimal nitrogen fertilizer. This is a major advantage especially in those areas
where there is a concern of groundwater contamination from synthetic fertilizers.
It is also very efficient in resource aftootion because planting and harvesting do
not coincide with the schedules of other major field crops. In addition, the roots
are potential sources of various sugars (Chubey and Dorrel, 1977).

It is apparent that endive is a potentially profitable crop to powers. Ejqperi-
m.ental studies in Vh^nia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have shown that this
crop can be grown successfully under the United States environmental conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture
Marketing Services. The Principal Investigator of this project was Dr. Tadesse
Mebrahtu who was responsible in designing and executing the field e^eriments
and Mr. Jimmy Mullins was responsible in forcing the endive roots in hydroponic
and soil. The authors would like to egress their gratitude to Mr. Robins T. Buck,
from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Marketing and Consumer Ser¬
vices, for his outstanding work in coordinating this research project between
Virginia State University and the United States Department of Agriculture. We

BELGIAN ENDIVE AS ALTERNATIVE CROP

45

also thamk Mr. Mitchell Patterson, Jr., Farm Superintendent and Extension Spe¬
cialist from VSU and Mr. Lornell Shepperson, Farm Manager, for their assistance
during hawesting operation.

LITERATURE CITED

Anon. 1985. Handbook of growing and forcing of chicory witloof. Nunhems
Zaden, Hoelen, Holland, p. 19,

Chubey, B. B. and Dorrel, D. G, 1977, Chicory, another potential fructose crop. J.

Inst. Can. Sci, Technol. Aliment. 10:331-332.

HiU, D. E. 1987. Witloof chicory (Bel^an endive) trials 1985. Bulletin 843. Conn.
Agric. E^. Sta., New Haven, p, 8,

. 19ffl. The chicories Witloof (Belgian endive) and radiccMo trials - 1986-
1987. Bulletin 859. Conn. A^ic. Exp. Sta. New Haven, p. 12.

. 1989. Witloof chicory (Belgian endive) and radiccMo trial - 1987-1988.
Bulletin 871. Conn, Agric. Exp, Sta. New Haven, p. 10.

Kruistum, G. V. and Buishand, T. 1982. Teelten trek van witloof (cultivation and
forcing of witloof) Handbook No. 12. Proefstation HGV. Leltstad, Holland.

100 pp.

Steel, R. G. and Torrie, J, H, 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. New
York: McGraw-HiU Book Co.

WHtney, L. F. and Corey, K. A. 1988, An experiment chamber for hydroponic
culture of Belgian endive. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Int, Meeting, Rapid City,
South Dakota, June 26-29. p. 11.

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

'■' ■ , -n,- J

r^V'Jte ■•■,' . -D'dii'

'•-'3

, ,. J ^'’i. *4

‘l.A ^

V' ' ■

r. y

Virgmia Journal of Science
Volume 44, Number 1
Spring 1993

Status and distribution of Phenacobius teretulus,
Etheostoma osbumi, and ”Rhinichthys bowersi " in the
Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia

Steve R. Chipps, William B. Peri^, Division of Forestry,

West Virginia University, Morgantown WV 26506-6125 and
Sue A. Perry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit^ ,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6125

ABSTRACT

We examined the status and distribution oi Phenacobius teretulus (Kanawha
minnow), Etheostoma osbumi (candy darter), and "Rhinichthys bowersi"
(Cheat minnow) in the Monongahela Nationad Forest, West Virginia. We
collected fishes using backpack electroshocking equipment at sites where
previous investigators collected these species. Patterns of abundance were
compared between historic and recent collections and examined for evi¬
dence of species decline. Results indicated that P. teretulus and E. osbumi
may be less abundant or absent in several streams that supported popula¬
tions in 1978 and 1979. In addition, "R. bowersi" remains rare to infrequent
in streams of the Monongahela National Forest.

INTRODUCTION

Information about the status, location, and distribution of rare and endemic
species enables us to develop effective management strategies, estabhsh priorities
for conservation of species, monitor chamges in status, and identify the progress of
restoration attempts (Jenkins, 1988). In 1974, the National Forest Management
Act required the USDA Forest Service to maintain biological diversity on U.S.
Forest Service lands. As a result, regional hsts of sensitive plants and animals have
been developed for U.S. Forest Service lands.

Five fishes are designated as 'sensitive’ in the Monongahela National Forest
(MNF), West Virginia. Historically, three of these, the candy darter (Etheostoma
osbumi), the Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus), and the Cheat minnow
("Rhinichthys bowersi", a presumed hybrid R. cataractae X Nocomis micropogon),
were collected in the MNF (Goldsborough and Clark, 1908; Addair, 1944; Hocutt
et al., 1978; Hocutt et al., 1979; Stauffer et al., 1979;). Of the other two species, the
redside dace ( Clinostomus elongatus) maintains a limited distribution near MNF
boundaries, whereas the presence of the longhead darter (Percina macrocephala)
has not been verified from streams in the MNF (Dan Cincotta, West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources, pers. com.).

The Kanawha minnow and the candy darter are endemic to the upper Kanawha
River system which includes the Greenbrier and Gauley River drainages in the

1 The Unit is jointly sponsored by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources, West Virginia University, and the Wildlife Management
Institute.

48

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

MNF (Figure 1). Endemism in the upper Kanawha River is reportedly high and is
beheved to be associated with a waterfall 73 m high, which isolates this system from
the lower Kanawha River drainage (Hocutt et al., 1979).

The Cheat minnow occurs primarily in the Monongahela River Basin, which
includes the Cheat River system. The Cheat River drainage is located in the
northwestern section of the MNF (Figure 1).

We examined the status and distribution of sensitive fishes in the MNF, and
when possible, compared distribution and abundance with historical information
for evidence of species decline. In addition, we identified hmnan activities that may
be affecting these species’ distributions and abundances.

METHODS

Study Area

The Monongahela National Forest is located in the mountainous, eastern part
of West Virginia. The topography consists of low valleys interspersed with north¬
east-southwest ridges. Elevation ranges from 274 m at Petersburg, WV to 1,219 m
along North Mountain in Pendleton County, WV (USD A, 1986).

The Monongahela National Forest contains about 857 km of permanently
flowing streams. Native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populate approximately
310 km of streams. About 220 km of streams are considered suitable for warmwater
fisheries. Eighty km of streams are considered acidic and do not have fish popu¬
lations (USD A, 1986).

Field Methods

We sampled a total of 55 stations on 19 streams between May and August 1991.
We sampled locations where previous investigators collected these sensitive fish
species (Hocutt et al., 1978; Hocutt et al., 1979; Stauffer et al. 1979; and Stauffer,
1986 impublished data). If we did not collect sensitive fish species at historic
locations, additional sampling attempts were made at stations above and below the
original site. Other stations were chosen based on proximity to historic locations
and presence of suitable habitat.

We collected fish with a backpack electroshocking unit (AC current) and two
5-mm-mesh dip nets. At each station, we delineated all available meso-habitats
(eg. riffle vs. run vs. pool) and sampled each habitat type separately. Upstream and
downstream block nets (4-mm mesh) were used to delimit each meso-habitat type
and sampling was conducted in an upstream direction. We sampled fishes until
additional effort yielded few or no specimens. This was usually accomplished after
three to four consecutive passes were made through a site. Density was determined
by calculating the areal dimension (width x length) of each meso-habitat type and
expressed as fish/1,000 m^. Density estimates are based only on the meso-habitat
area in which a sensitive fish species was collected and not the total area sampled
at each station.

We identified and counted all fishes before releasing them. Specimens that
could not be identified in the field were fixed in 10% formalin and returned to the
laboratory for identification.

Because results from historic surveys were qualitative in design (i.e. no CPUE
indices, densities, etc.), we could not perform statistical comparisons between our

SENSITIVE FISH IN MONONGAHELA FOREST 49

FIGURE 1. Map of streams sampled in the Monongahela National Forest, WV. All stations, with the
exception of 1 and 51, represent successful collection sites during the 1991 survey.

results and the earlier reports. Instead, we examined patterns in raw abundance
data for evidence of species decline. We assumed that our sampling efficiency (i.e.
depletion effort) was equal to or exceeded that of the earlier investigations and
provided at least a conservative measure for comparison. For example, during
historic surveys, sampling effort was aimed at collecting a representative sample of
all species present (Hocutt et al., 1978; 1979). With the exception of larger streams
and rivers (i.e. the Greenbrier and Gauley rivers), samples were collected with
seines (3.2 and 3.6 mm mesh) or AC/DC electroshocking equipment (Hocutt et al.,
1978; 1979).

50

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Kanawha Minnow

Kanawha minnows (N = 37) were obtained from four stations in the East and
West forks of the Greenbrier River (Table 1). We collected over half (19) of these
specimens at Station 16 in the East Fork Greenbrier River (Table 1; Figure 1). The
abundance of Kanawha minnows was highest at this station; density was estimated
as 30 fish/1000 m^. Although we found this species in the West Fork Greenbrier
River (Station 11), its density was very low (1 specimen collected). The Kanawha
minnow was not captiued at stations in the Williams River (Addair, 1944) or Laurel
Creek (Hocutt et i., 1978).

The Kanawha minnow, an endemic to the upper Kanawha River system, is
generally distributed throughout the New River drainage in Virginia, West Virginia
and North Carolina. In North Carolina, the Kanawha minnow is considered an
endangered species (Williams et al., 1989). In West Virginia, it is rare in both the
Greenbrier and Gauley River drainages. Hocutt et al. (1978) reported 2 specimens
from the West Fork of the Greenbrier River and 1 specimen from the East Fork
Greenbrier River. In their later survey of the Gauley River system, Hocutt et al.
(1979) reported only 2 specimens from Laurel Creek, a tributary of the Cherry
River.

Addair (1944) reported finding the Kanawha minnow in Indian Creek (Monroe
County, WV), a tributary of the New River. Its present occurrence in this drainage,
however, is questionable. It was not found in Indian Creek during surveys by
Stauffer et al. in 1980 (unpubhshed data) (Dan Cincotta, pers. com.).

We believe that the Kanawha minnow is well established in the upper East Fork
Greenbrier River. Our collection of 36 specimens is the largest record from West
Virginia. The single specimen captured in the West Fork Greenbrier River,
combined with historic reports of infrequent specimens, suggests that the Kanawha
minnow is less abundant in the West Fork Greenbrier River.

The presence of an industrial tannery approximately 2 km below Station 17 on
the East Fork Greenbrier River should generate concern for this species. Only
tolerant species (i.e. creek chub, Semotilus atromaculatus, sunfish, Lepomis spp.,
fantail darter, E. flahellare) occur directly downstream of the tannery discharge.
Hence, water quality conditions below the tannery may be limiting the dispersal of
the East Fork Greenbrier population. This isolation could have an important
influence on the re-establishment of Kanawha minnow populations in West VV:-
ginia. Small, isolated populations, such as those of the Kanawha minnow, are more
likely to lose genetic variation and suffer from inbreeding depression (Hedrick,
1992).

The status of the Kanawha minnow in Laurel Creek is unknown. In this stream,
where Hocutt et al. (1979) reported two specimens, we did not collect the Kanawha
minnow. The water quality in Laurel Creek appears to have been affected by strip
mining operations downstream from the historic collection site (Station 6). Acidic
conditions (pH = 3.4) were measured near the mid-section of the stream. Water
quality improved below the mid-section and supported tolerant species. These
conditions, which impacted nearly half of the stream, may have had adverse affects

SENSITIVE FISH IN MONONGAHELA FOREST 51

TABLE 1. Kanawha minnow collection sites by stream in the Monongahela National Fot^t. Abun¬
dance data from historic and recent investigations are given. Fish densities (fish/1000 m*^) from the
1991 survey are in parentheses.

No. collected
(Hocutt et al.,
1978;1979)

No. collected
(This study; 1991)

Location and Station No.

Not sampled

5 (6)

East Fork Greenbrier River,

2.4 km aboye Pocahontas 4H
Camp. Station 15.

Not sampled

19 (30)

East Fork Greenbrier River,

1.6 km below Pocahontas 4H
Camp on USFS access road.
Station 16.

1

12 (13)

East Fork Greenbrier River,

28/19 bridge, Thornwood.

Station 17.

2

1 (1)

West Fork Greenbrier River,

Rt. 250 bridge. Station 11.

2

0 (0)

Laurel Creek, confluence with
McMillon Run. Station 6.

on the Kanawha minnow, which presumably prefers streams with circumneutral
pH (Hambrick et al. 1975).

The Kanawha minnow has not been reported from the Williams River since the
mid 1930’s (Addair, 1944). Hocutt et al. (1979) did not collect the Kanawha
minnow in the Williams River during their survey of the Gauley River System. It is
unclear what factors have led to the apparent absence of the Kanawha minnow in
the Williams River. Silviculture is the predominant land use in this watershed but
is not believed to have a significant impact on water quality (George Hudack, U.S.
Forest Service, pers. com.). During our investigation, we observed turbid water
conditions in the Williams River, particularly following rainfall. Excessive siltation
is considered an important factor limiting usable fish habitat (Berkman and Rabeni,
1987).

The Williams River is also managed as a premier trout fishery. It annually
receives 27,(XX) pounds of trout and ranks fourth among trout-stocked streams in
West Virginia (Wildlife Resources Division, 1989). Studies by Krueger and Menzel
(1979), suggest that hatchery trout exert selective pressures on wild stocks induced
by ecological interactions between species. Competition for space between intro¬
duced brown trout (Salmo truttd) and a native giaxiid species was demonstrated
in studies by McIntosh et al. (1992). Additionally, Lemly (1985) has shown that
native fish populations were suppressed when green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
were introduced into streams. To date, however, the effects of trout stocking on
native West Virginia fishes has not been studied.

52

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Acidic precipitation may also be a limiting factor. Acidic precipitation is
particularly detrimental in the Appalachian region (Dillon et al., 1984).

Hocutt et al. (1978) suggested that the West Virginia Di\dsion of Natural
Resomces list the Kanawha minnow as a threatened species. Though the Kanawha
minnow ranges from infrequent to common in the East Fork Greenbrier River^ our
data suggest that its distribution in West Virginia is declining. Because we did not
collect the Kanawha minnow from either the Williams River or Laurel Creek, we
believe that the Kanawha minnow warrants a status survey for potential federal
listing, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act as a threatened or endangered
species.

Candy Darter

We collected candy darters (N = 96) at 20 sampling stations in 10 streams (Table
2). These stations were located in all previously sampled streams (Addair, 1944;
Hocutt et al., 1978; Hocutt et al., 1979). Fourteen specimens were collected at
Station 6 in Laurel Creek and at Station 4 in the Cherry River (Table 2; Figure 1).
The highest density, 33 fish/1000 m^, was at Station 6 in Laurel Creek. The Williams
River, Deer Creek, and Anthony Creek yielded only one specimen each.

The candy darter is distributed throughout the lower New River drainage in
West Virginia and Virginia. Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) suggest that the species
is disappearing in the lower New River (upper Kanawha) system of Virginia. The
candy darter has been listed as a species of "special concern" over its entire range
in Virginia and West Virginia (Williams et al., 1989).

The candy darter is well established in the Cherry River system of the upper
Gauley River, where it ranges from infrequent to common. It is also common in
the East and West forks of the Greenbrier River. We are concerned about its status
in Deer Creek (Station 51), Anthony Creek (Station 19), and the Williams River
(Station 2). These streams were among the most productive in yielding candy
darters during the late 1970’s. For example, at Stations 2 and 19 where Hocutt et
al. (1978; 1979) reported 25 and 10 specimens, we collected only one specimen at
each station. Moreover, our collections in Deer Creek (Station 51) resulted in only
one specimen, whereas Hocutt et al. (1978) collected 11 specimens at a nearby
locality. Of 11 stations (10 streams) sampled in the late 1970’s, only 3 stations (3
streams) produced more specimens during the 1991 investigation (Table 2). These
data indicate that the candy darter may be declining in several streams that
supported populations in 1978 and 1979.

The major threat to candy darter populations may be siltation (Berkman and
Rabeni, 1987; Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991). Excessive siltation characterized areas
where the candy darter was absent or much diminished. Trout stocking may also
negatively affect the candy darter (Kuehne and Barboiu, 1983). In addition, wading
by anglers may exert some control on darter populations, especially in heavily-
fished streams (Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991).

The brightly colored candy darter may also be more susceptible to predation.
Brightly colored darters are often more conspicuous and may therefore be con¬
strained by predation (Page and Swofford, 1984). The fact that we did not collect
this species in pools or areas inhabited by large, piscivorous fish (e.g. centrarchids
and salmonids) is consistent with the predation risk hypothesis (Power, 1987).

SENSITIVE FISH IN MONONGAHELA FOREST 53

TABLE 2. Candy darter collection sites by stream in the Monongahela National Foj^t. Abundance
data from historic and recent investigations are given. Fish densities (fish/1000 m*^) from the 1991
survey are in parentheses.

No. collected
(Hocutt et al.,
1978;1979)

No. collected
(This study; 1991)

Location and Station No.

Not sampled

3

(6)

East Fork Greenbrier 2.4 km
above 4H Camp. Station 15.

Not sampled

5

(14)

East Fork Greenbrier River,

1.6 km below Pocahontas 4H
Camp on USFS access road.
Station 16.

11

12

(22)

East Fork Greenbrier River, at
Route 28/19 bridge, Thornwood
Road. Station 17.

Not sampled

3

(2)

West Fork Greenbrier River, at
Iron Bridge. Station 9.

Not sampled

1

(2)

West Fork Greenbrier River,
below Fill Rim. Station 10.

9

3

(2)

West Fork Greenbrier River, at
Route 250 bridge. Station 11.

11

0

*

Deer Creek, Pocahontas County
below Rt. 28 bridge c 120
meters. Station 51.

Not sampled

1

(1)

Deer Creek, Route 66 bridge.
Station 52.

21

3

Sitlington Creek, Route 28
bridge, Dunmore. Station 56.

5

3

(5)

Knapp Creek, 5.3 km E. of
Marlmton on US Route 39
bridge. Station 12.

10

1

(1)

Anthony Creek, at Anthony.
Station 19.

25

0

(0)

Williams River, 4.8 km from
Handl^ on Williams River

Road. Station 1.

0

1

(1)

Williams River, below Rt. 150
Scenic Highway. Station 2.

Not sampled

6

(15)

South Fork Cherry River 7.2 km
above bridge on Johnstown

Road. Station 21.

CONTINUED

54

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

TABLE 2 CONTINUED.

No. collected
(Hocutt et al.,
1978;1979)

No. collected
(This study; 1991)

Location and Station No.

7

6 (17)

South Fork Cherry River, 5.3
km above bridge on Johnstown
Road. Station 22.

Not sampled

9 (21)

South Fork Cherry River, 4 km
above bridge on Johnstown

Road. Station 23.

7

14 (33)

Laurel Creek, confluence with
McMillon Run. Station 6.

Not sampled

1 (1)

Laurel Creek, 1.6 km below

Island Creek Coal Company.
Station 7.

Not sampled

2 (4)

Laurel Creek, at Route 20/13
bridge. Station 8.

Not sampled

6 (12)

Cherry River, at Pratt Park,
Richwood. Station 3.

5

14 (23)

Cherry River, Rt. 20 Bridge at
Holcomb. Station 4.

3

2 (3)

Cherry River, confluence with
Gauley River. Station 5.

* This station located 0 J km upstream of historic site.

** This station was sampled in September 1991 and was located immediately downstream of Rt. 28
bridge. Density estimates were not calculated for this site.

We believe that the candy darter may be less abundant in several West Virginia
streams that supported populations in the late 1970’s. This, combined with a lack
of recent records in Virginia (Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991), warrants a more
comprehensive status survey of the candy darter for potential federal listing.

Cheat Minnow

Cheat minnows (N = 8) were collected at four stations in three streams (Table
3). Three specimens were obtained from Station 28 in Glady Fork, 3 from Station
31 in Horseshoe Run, 1 from Station 39 in the Dry Fork River, and 1 specimen from
Station 27 in Glady Fork (Table 3; Figure 1). The highest density was at Station 31
of Horseshoe Run with 10 fish/1000 m^. We failed to collect the Cheat minnow at
the historic localities reported by Stauffer et al. (1979). Thus, we were unable to
compare collections by date as we did with the Kanawha minnow (Table 1) and the
candy darter (Table 2).

SENSITIVE FISH IN MONONGAHELA FOREST

55

TABLE 3. Cheat minnow collection sites by stream in the Monongahcla National Forest.

Nunaber of
specimens

Density; ,
fish/1000

Location and Station No.

1

1

Dry Fork, 0.6 km below WV Natural
Heritage building off of US Route

32. Station 39.

1

1

Glady Fork, above confluence with
Three Springs Run.

Station 21.

3

4

Glady Fork, 0.8 km below gate on
USFS Route 162. Station 28.

3

10

Horseshoe Run, at Horseshoe
Campground. Station 31.

The Cheat minnow has been collected in the upper Cheat River system since
1899 (Stauffer et al. 1979). Recent accounts of the Cheat minnow in the MNF
include smveys by Cincotta et al. 1986, Stauffer (1986, impublished data), and the
West Virginia Dl^ in 1990 (Dan Cincotta, pers. comm.). Stauffer’s 19^ unpub¬
lished report on the status and distribution of the Cheat minnow in the Mononga-
hela Basin did not include collections from the Dry Fork River (Goldsborough and
Clark, 1908; Stauffer et al., 1979) or Horseshoe Run (Stauffer et al., 1979). Our
recent records from Dry Fork River and Horseshoe Run reaffirm occurrence of
the Cheat minnow in these drainages.

Data on previous records of the Cheat minnow indicate that abundance of this
fish was relatively high in the upper Shaver’s Fork of the Cheat River drainage
(Raney, 1940; Stauffer et al., 1979). Stauffer (1986, unpubhshed data) suggested
that a threat to the Cheat minnow population in Shaver’s Fork was a coal washing
plant located near the Route 250 bridge. In addition, acidic precipitation and
increased siltation (from road construction) may have the most adverse effects on
fish populations in the upper Shaver’s Fork (Dan Cincotta, pers. com.).

The Dry Fork River has been subjected to channel modifications through
periodic dredging near Harman, WV (Cal Casipit, U.S. Forest Service, pers. com.).
It is unclear whether these activities have adverse effects on Cheat minnow popu¬
lations in the Dry Fork. Portt et al. (1986), however, showed that in general, fish
biomass and production were much reduced in channelized areas.

Cheat minnow populations in Horseshoe Run and Glady Fork are not subjected
to obvious cultural perturbations. These streams are managed by U.S. Forest
Service guidelines.

At present it is unclear whether the Cheat minnow represents a distinct species.
Stauffer et al. (1979) discussed meristic and morphometric characteristics of the
Cheat minnow. Their findings suggest that the Cheat minnow is a hybrid between
the longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae and the river chub Nocomis micropogon.
Stauffer et al. (1979) also stated that the Cheat minnow showed all the characters

56

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

of a valid species. Goodfellow et al. (1984) provided biochemical evidence that
indicates the Cheat minnow is a valid species.

The Cheat minnow remains rare and infrequent in the MNF and warrants
consideration as a protected species. We believe that the Cheat minnow should
also be evaluated for protective status in streams of the Monongahela River Basin.

SUMMARY

Our observations indicate that the Kanawha minnow and the candy darter may
be reduced or absent in several streams in the MNF. In addition, the Cheat minnow
remains rare and infrequent in MNF streams.

The fragmentation of existing populations, caused by continued human distiu-
bances, may pose the greatest threat to sensitive and endemic fish species in West
Virginia. The effects of acidic precipitation combined with increasing siltation in
many streams appear among the most significant distinbances. The introduction
of exotic species should also be carefully considered, because their influence on
native fishes is not well understood. Until there is a better understanding of these
species’ distributions and tolerance to human perturbations, responsible manage-
ment of these fishes should aim at preserving existing populations and maintaining
areas necessary for their production by designating protected habitat.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was based on research toward a Master of Science degree by the
senior author. SC was responsible for fish collections and identification, and SC,
WP, and SP collaborated jointly on survey design, data analysis, interpretation, and
manuscript preparation. This work was jointly funded by the U.S. Forest Service
(Monongahela National Forest), and West Virginia University, College of Agricul¬
ture and Forestry. The advice and assistance of Dan Cincotta (WV Division of
Natural Resources, Elkins, WV), Cal Casipit (U.S. Forest Service, Monongahela
National Forest, Elkins, WV), and George Hudak (U.S. Forest Service, Mononga¬
hela National Forest, Richwood, WV) were invaluable. We thank Joe Christopher,
Doug Graham, Karen Barton, Brian Vlach, and Tom Oldham for assistance in the
field. This manuscript is published as Scientific Article No. 2391 of the West
Virginia Agriculture and Experiment Station.

LITERATURE CITED

Addair, J. 1944. The fishes of the Kanawha River System in West Virginia and some
factors which influence their distribution. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio. 225 pp.

Berkman H. E,, and C. F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish commu¬
nities. Environ. Biol. Fishes 18:285-294.

Burkhead, N. M. and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp. 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger
(ed.), Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Co. Blacksburg, Virginia.

Cincotta, D. A., R. Miles, M. Hoeft, and G. Lewis. 1986. Discovery of Noturus
eleutherus and Percina peltata in West Virginia with discussion of other addi¬
tions and records. BrMeyana 12:101-121.

SENSITIVE FISH IN MONONGAHELA FOREST

57

DiEon, P. N, D. Yan, and H. H. Harvey. 1984. Acidic deposition: effects on
aquatic ecosystems. Pp. 167- 194 In iCritical Reviews in Environmental Control,
Vol. 13. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.

Goldsborough, E. L. and H. W. Clark. 1908. Fishes of West Virginia. Bull. Bur.
Fisheries, Washington 27:29-39.

GoodfeUow, W. L., C. H. Hocutt, R. P. Morgan II, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1984.
Biochemical assessment of the taxonomic status ofRhinichthys howersL Copeia

1984:652-59.

Hambrick, P. S., R. E. Jenkins, and J. H. WEson. 1975. Distribution, habitat and
food of the cyprinid Ti^hPhenacohius teretuluSj a New River drainage endemic.
Copeia 1975:172-176.

Hedrick, P. W. 1992. Genetic conservation in captive populations and endangered
species. App. Pop. Biol. 1992:45-68.

Hocutt, C. H., R. F. Denoncourt, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1978. Fishes of the
Greenbrier River, West Virginia, with drainage history of the central Appala¬
chians. Jour. Biogeog. 5:59-80.

Hocutt, C. H., R. F. Denoncourt, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1979. Fishes of the Gauley
River, West Virginia. Brimleyana 1:47-80.

Jenkins, R. E. 1988. Information management for the conservation of biodiversity.
Pp. 231-239 in: E.O. WEson (ed.), Biodiversity. National Acad. Press, Wash¬
ington D.C. 521 pp.

Krueger C. C., and B, W. Menzel. 1979. Effects of stocking on genetics of wEd brook
trout populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:277-287.

Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American darters. University of
Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky. 189 pp,

Lemly, D. A. 1985. Suppression of native fish populations by green sunfish in
first-order streams of Piedmont North Carolina. Trans. Am, Fish. Society
114:705-712.

McIntosh, A. R., C. R. Townsend, and T. A. Crowl, 1992. Competition for space
between introduced brown trout Salmo trutta and a native galaaid Galwdm
vulgaris in a New Zealand stream. J. Fish Biol. 41:63-81.

Page, L. M. and D. L. Swofford. 1984. Morphological correlates of ecological
specialization in darters. Environ. Biol Fishes 11:139-159.

Portt, C. B., E. K. Balon, and D. L. G. Noakes. 1986. Biomass and production of
fishes in natural and channelized streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43:1926-
1934,

Power, M. E. 1987. Predator avoidance by grazing fishes in temperate and tropical
streams: importance of stream depth and prey size. Pp. 333-351 in: W.C.
Kerfoot & A. Sih (ed.), Predation: Direct and indirect impacts on aquatic
communities, University Press of New England, Hanover. , ^

Raney, E. C. 1940. Rhinichthys bowersi from West Virginia, a hybrid Rhinkhthys
cataractae X Nocomis mkropogon, Copeia 1940:270-271.

Stauffer, J. R., Jr. 1986. Status of the Cheat minnow, Rhinkhthys bowersi^ in the
Monongahela River drainage. Report to G. A. Moser, U. S. Fish and WEdlife
Service, Delmarva Area Office, Annapolis, MD.

Stauffer, J. R,, Jr., C. H. Hocutt, and R. F. Denoncourt. 1979. Status and distribu¬
tion of the hybrid Nocomis mkropogon x Rhinkhthys cataractae^ with a discus-

58

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

sion of hybridization as a viable mode of vertebrate speciation. Amer. Mid.
Nat. 101:355-365.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. Final environmen¬
tal impact statement: Land and resource management plan, Monongahela
National Forest. USDAFS, Elkins, WV. 58 pp.

Wildlife Resources Division. 1989. West Virginia Trout Fishing Guide. WV De¬
partment of Natural Resources, Charleston. 40 pp.

Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Conteras-Balderas, J. D.
Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister and J. E. Deacon. 1989.
Fishes of North America; endangered, threatened, or of special concern.
Fisheries 14:2-20.

Virginia Journal of Science
Volume 44^ Number 1
Spring 1993

Influence of Elaiosome Removal on Germination in Five
Ant-Dispersed Plant Species

Marion Blois Lobstein, Division of Science and Technology,
Northern Virginia Community College, Manassas Campus,
Manassas, VA 22110 and
Larry L. Rockwood, Department of Biology,

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030

ABSTRACT

Seed dispersal by ants is a common phenomenon in Eastern deciduous
forests of the United States. Among the proposed benefits to the plant of
seed manipulation by ants is enhancement of the germination rate. Since
1984 we have investigated the hypothesis that elaiosome removal enhances
germination rate on eight different ant-dispersed species. Preliminary re¬
sults have shown a significant increase in germination rate with elaiosome
removal in only one species, Sanguinaria canadensis. We report here the
results of two years of laboratory experiments. Intact (control) seeds, and
seeds whose elaiosomes have been removed were incubated on moistened
foam pads in petri dishes. Seeds were exposed to three months each of
temperature regimes meant to simulate summer, fall, and winter (5^C)
conditions. High germination rates were obtained for S. canadensis, As-
arum canadensejeffersonia diphylla, and Viola striata. Only in 5. canadensis
did elaiosome removal significantly enhance germination (p < 0.001). Ger¬
mination rates were poor in Dicentra cucullaria and the effects of elaiosome
removal were inconclusive. The results strongly suggest that elaiosome
removal does enhance germination in S. canadensis.

INTRODUCTION

The dispersal of seeds by ants is a common phenomenon in the herbaceous
understory of the temperate forests of Europe and North America, in the
shrublands of South Africa and Austraha, and even in alpine and tropical locations
(Beattie, 1985). Ants are attracted to a Hpid-rich structure, known as an elaiosome,
aril, or caruncle which is externally attached to the seed coat. Ants carry the seeds
to their nest where the elaiosome, but not the seed itself, is consumed, usually by
the larvae. The seeds are then carried to another location in or near the nest.
Chemical analyses of elaiosomes from several plant species, including species from
North America and Australia, have shown that oleic acid is the most common fatty
acid present, and a common diglyceride is 1,2-diolein, both of which have been
shown to be ant attractants (Marshall et al., 1979; Kusmenoglu et al., 1989;
Skidmore and Heithaus, 1988; Brew et al., 1989). Worker ants from a large number
of species are attracted to elaiosome-bearing seeds. In Loudoun County, Virginia,
Rockwood (unpubhshed results) has found 15 species of ants carried the seeds of
Sanguinaria canadensis, Viola papilionacea, and Trillium sessile (nomenclature
used in this paper follows Radford et al., 1968) . Beattie and Culver (1981) have
reported that nine species of ants carried seeds when they tested 10 elaiosome-
bearing species in West Virginia, and Hanzawa et al. (1988) have found that nine
ant species dispersed the seeds of Corydalis aurea in Colorado.

60

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

The benefits of this interaction to the ants seem evident in that the elaiosomes
provide a temporary high quality source of lipids. What remains problematic,
however, is exactly how the interaction benefits the plants. When Beattie (1985)
reviewed the literature, he has found little evidence that seeds were moved far
enough by the ants to support a "dispersal for distance" hypothesis. Some research¬
ers have stressed the advantages of seeds being rapidly removed from the forest
floor by the ants once they are shed from the fruit. Ants quickly locate and move
the seeds to sites within or near the nest. This prevents predation by rodents or
snails (Heithaus, 1981). Other ecologists have shown that, though ants may not
move seeds very far, they place them in a microhabitat (near an ant nest) where the
soil is inherently rich in nutrients and relatively free of competition from other
plants (Hanzawa et al., 1988).

It has also been proposed that ant manipulation of seeds results in an increase
in the rate of germination. As explained by Horowitz and Beattie (1980), "if ant
manipulation of seeds is adaptive, then one could expect that removal of the
elaiosome or aril would enhance the probability or speed of germination." The
process of seed handling could effectively scarify the seed and thereby enhance
germination. The elaiosome may also contain chemicals which suppress germina¬
tion. Removal of the elaiosome could be interpreted as an environmental cue for
germination, and thought of as part of the ant-seed dispersal syndrome evolved by
the plant.

Data in support of this hypothesis are not strong. For example, Horowitz and
Beattie (1980) collected 20 seeds of Calathea microcephala (Marantaceae) from
the forest floor in Vera Cruz, Mexico and incubated them on moist filter paper. Of
13 seeds with intact arils, none germinated, while three seeds germinated of the
seven whose arils were removed. The sample size was small and the age of the seeds
was unknown. Subsequently, Horowitz (1981) collected 185 seeds of C
microcephala and 61 seeds of C ovandensis from freshly opened capsules. Arils
were removed, either by ants or by the use of a razor blade. Some seeds were
immediately placed on moist filter paper and others were held two days before
being placed on filter paper. The rate of germination was actually higher in C
microcephala when arils were left intact if the seeds were immediately placed on
moist filter paper. With two days delay, aril removal resulted in a higher germina¬
tion rate (75.0% versus 43.9%). None of the C. ovandensis seeds germinated.
When Culver and Beattie (1978) tested the effects of elaiosome removal on Viola
papilionacea seeds they found no significant effect on germination rate, though 33%
of the ant-handled seeds had reached the seedling stage after 25 days, as compared
to only 14% of the control plants. Later, Culver and Beattie (1980) examined
germination rates of V. odorata and V. hirta, and found that elaiosome removal had
a positive, but statistically insignificant, effect. In most of these studies the sample
sizes were small, there were no replicates, and the time-frame allowed for germi¬
nation was usually no more than 35 days.

In a series of papers on the germination ecophysiology of herbaceous plants
from Eastern Deciduous forests, Baskin and Baskin (1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1989) have
studied several ant-dispersed plant species. They have found two basic patterns.
Some species (Erythronium albidum, Hepatica acutiloba^ andAsamm canadense)
have epicotyl dormancy. In such species the radicles of seeds sown in the soil

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL

61

emerge in the autumn, but emergence of the cotyledons is delayed until late winter
or early spring. Radicle dormancy is broken by autumn-like temperatures (20® C
and 10®C for 12 hours each) and chilling is necessary to break the dormancy of the
epicotyl. In a second, though similar pattern, shown by the ant-dispersed
Jeffersonia diphylla (Baskin and Baskin, 1989), when seeds are produced in late
May or early June, they have underdeveloped embryos. High summer tempera¬
tures are necessary for matmation of the embryos. Once embryos have attained a
length of at least one mm, seed dormancy can be broken by a period of cold
stratification. Seeds kept at 5® C for 180 days had a germination rate of 85-96%
(Baskin and Baskin, 1989).

Although Baskin and Baskin worked on a number of ant-dispersed species, in
none of their papers did they remove the elaiosomes. The fact that they still
obtained high germination rates casts doubt on the hypothesis that elaiosome
removal stimulates germination. Furthermore, the fact that germination requires
specific temperature regimes does not lend credence to the idea that removal of
the elaiosome by an ant is a significant environmental cue, at least in Eastern
Deciduous forest ecosystems.

Nevertheless, in several preliminary experiments, we have foimd that germina¬
tion rates in Sanguinaria canadensis were significantly improved if the elaiosomes
were removed, though this effect was not evident in other species tested (Blois and
Rockwood, 1985, 1986, 1987; Rockwood and Blois, 1986; Lobstein and Rockwood,
1991). The purpose of the work reported here was to test the effect of elaiosome
removal of a number of ant-dispersed plants common to Northern Virginia. We
also repeated the work of Baskin and Baskin (1986, 1989) on two species while using
their germination protocol on three additional species.

STUDY SITES

Plants of the spring blooming native species used in this study were collected at
two sites in Loudoun County and at one site in Prince William County, Virginia.

Lake Jackson Road

The Lake Jackson Road study site is in Prince Wilham County, 0.5 km south of
the intersection with Route 234. Sanguinaria canadensis was collected on a steep
slope along the edge of the road. The overstory is made up of mixed oak (Quercus)
species.

Ball’s Bluff Site

Ball’s Bluff National Cemetery is located in Loudoun County, 1.6 kilometers
north of Leesburg, VA off Route 15. The Asarum canadense and Viola striata
collection sites are on a sUtstone bluff above the floodplain of the Potomac River.
This study site is an oak ( Quercus spp.), beech (Fagus grandifolia) and tuhp poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) forest with an under story of Lindera benzoin andAsimina
triloba. The other primary herbaceous species in the area are Podophyllum
peltatum, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Osmorhiza longistylis^ Dicentra cucullaria,
Viola papillionaceay Allaria ofpnalis, Arisaema triphyllum, Hydrophyllum
virginianum, Trillium sessile, Smilacina racemosa, Impatiens capensis, Veronica
hederacea, and Galium aparine.

62

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Point of Rocks Site

The Point of Rocks study site is in Loudoun County, 17.6 km north of Leesburg,
VA off Route 15 near the bridge over the Potomac River. Th^Asarum canadense,
Sanguinaria canadensis. Dicentra cucullaria, andJeffersonia diphylla collection sites
are located on a steep rocky outcropping. This collection site is an oak, maple
(Acer spp.), and beech forest with an imderstory of Comus florida. The other
primary herbaceous species in the general study area are Podophyllum peltatum,
Canlophyiium thalictroides, Erythronium albidum, Arisaema triphyllum, Viola
papillionacea, V. pensylvanica, Erigenia bulbosa, Hydrophyllum virginianum, Poly-
gonatum biflorum, Osmorhiza claytonia, O. longistylis, Phlox divaricata, Claytonia
virginica, D. canadensis, Smilacina racemosa. Allaria officinalis, and Galium apar-
ine.

SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS

Sanguinaria canadensis(PapasiQTacQa€) is a spring blooming perennial herba¬
ceous species of mesic deciduous forests. This species blooms from late March to
early April in Northern Virginia. The flower is 5-10 cm in diameter with 8-12 white
petals, 2 green sepals, 24 stamens, and a single ovary with 40-45 ovules. The
primary pollinators are bees and syrphid flies. The flower remains receptive to
cross-pollination for two days after which autogamy may occur (Schemske, 1978).
Fruit set begins shortly after fertilization. The fruit is an elongated capsule that
reaches a length of 5-8 cm at maturity. The capsule splits along two longitudinal
sutures, releasing 20-25 seeds. Each dark brown seed is 2-3 mm long with an
elaiosome and is ant-dispersed (Gates, 1942). The primary single leaf is 5-20 cm
in length, and is reniform with distinctive scalloped edges. The leaves of individual
plants may persist into late summer. The underground storage structure is a large
fleshy rhizome that exudes an orange-red exudate if damaged.

Jeffersonia diphylla (Berberidaceae) is a spring blooming perennial herbaceous
species, usually located in mesic deciduous forests, often with calcareous soils. In
Northern Virginia, this species often begins to bloom early in April and fruit set
begins two days to one week after blooming. The solitary flowers are approximately
4 cm in diameter with 8 white petals, 8 stamens, and a pistil with 15-60 ovules within
a single ovary. Bees are the primary pollinators. There is some evidence that if
cross-pollination is not effective that autogamy may occur (Smith et al., 1986). The
fruit is a pear-shaped capsule that is 2-5 cm long at functional maturity (late June
in northern Virginia). The top of the fruit dehisces like an urn Ud at maturity,
releasing 20 or more chestnut-brown, 7-8 mm long seeds. The seeds have
elaiosomes and are ant-dispersed (Smith et al., 1986). The leaves are 6-14 cm wide,
3-7 cm long, and are two-parted, resembling the wings of a butterfly. Each plant
produces 2-17 leaves, which may persist until late summer. The underground
storage structures are rhizomes.

Dicentra cucullaria (Fumariaceae) is a spring ephemeral of mesic deciduous
forests. The flowers have 4 petals that form bilaterally symmetrical sac-like corol¬
las, 2 green sepals, 6 stamens, and a bicarpellate ovary. Bumblebees are the
primary pollinators. Fruit set begins several weeks after flowering. The fruit is a
2.5-3.0 cm long capsule which matures by early May. As the fruit matures it begins

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL

63

to disintegrate, releasing an average of 15-20 shiny black seeds, each 2-3 mm long.
The seeds have elaiosomes and are ant-dispersed. Each plant has several finely
divided leaves which begin to senesce as the fruits are maturing. The underground
storage structures are corms.

Asarum canadense (Aristolochiaceae) is a spring ephemeral of mesic deciduous
forests. In Northern Virginia, this species begins to bloom in mid-April. The
flowers have three maroon sepals, twelve stamens, and an inferior ovary. The
primary pollinators are mushroom gnats, ground-walking flies, and beetles. There
is some evidence that autogamy may occur if cross-pollination does not take place.
Fruit set begins several weeks after flowering. The fruit is a 6-8 mm long capsule
that matures in mid- June in Northern Virginia. As the fruit matures it begins to
disintegrate, releasing an average of 15-20 russet-colored seeds 4-5 mm long. These
seeds have elaiosomes and are ant-dispersed (Beattie and Culver, 1981). Each
plant has a pair of cordate leaves with the single flower developing at the base
between these two leaves. The leaves remain photosynthetic into late autumn. The
underground storage structures are rhizomes.

Viola striata (Violaceae) is a spring ephemeral of mesic deciduous forests. This
species begins to bloom in early to mid- April in Northern Virginia. The flowers of
V. striata have 5 white petals, 5 green sepals, 5 stamens, and a tricarpellate pistil.
Bees are the primary pollinators. Fruit set begins soon after flowering. The fruit
is a 7-11 mm long three-chambered capsule that matures in early to mid-May in
Northern Virginia. As the fruit matures it begins to dehisce, releasing an average
of 12-15 seeds, each 2-2.5 mm long. These seeds have elaiosomes and are ant-dis-
persed (Culver and Beattie, 1978). Each plant has both stem and basal cordate
leaves. The leaves may begin to senesce after the fruits mature or may remain
photosynthetic well into summer. The underground storage structures are rhi¬
zomes.

METHODS

Seeds were collected from the field when fruits were ripe cmd beginning to shed
their seeds (Table 1). Elaiosomes were carefully removed from half of the seeds
under a dissecting microscope using forceps. Care was taken to avoid damaging
the seeds or scarifying them. In most cases the elaiosomes separated cleanly from
the seed coat.

Seeds were placed in petri dishes lined with a gray foam pad (8 cm in diameter,
5 mm thick) which fits into a standard petri dish. Ten seeds were placed in each
dish, which was kept moist with distilled water. In the 1989-90 experiments, filter
paper discs were placed on top of the foam pads and the seeds were placed on the
filter paper. However, the filter paper seemed to encourage fungal contamination
of the seeds. The filter paper was removed at the end of August, 1989. Thereafter,
and in the 1990-91 experiments, seeds were germinated directly on the foam pads.

Germination was defined as penetration of the seed coat by the radicle of the
embryo. Thus, we did not concern ourselves with breaking the dormancy of the
epicotyl, though, in fact, radicle emergence was usually followed by emergence of
the cotyledons at a later date. All petri dishes were inspected at least weekly with
a dissecting microscope. Germination was clearly evident on the foaun pads, an

64

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

advantage over our previous experiments in which we had germinated seeds on
sphagnum moss or on soil (Blois and Rockwood, 1985).

Five species were used in 1989-90: Senguinaria canadensis, Asarum canadense,
J.ejfersonia diphylla. Dicentra cucuHaria, and Viola striata. In the 1990-91 experi¬
ments only 5. canadensis, A. canadense, andD. cucullaria seeds were used.

Seasonal temperature and day length regimes were adapted from Baskin and
Baskin (1989) as shown in Table 1. In the 1989-90 experiments we put the seeds
through a simulated spring season (15°C for 12 hours and 5^C for 12 hours) before
exposing them to at least three months of "summer" temperatures (28°C and 15^C
for 12 hours each). In 1990-91 the seeds were placed directly into the "summer"
temperatures as the experiment began. In both years the incubators were then set
on "fall" temperature conditions (20°C and lO^C, 12 hours each) for three months.
At this point the incubators were set at 5°C ("winter"), 24 hours per day, until the
experiment was concluded (Table 1). During the entire experiment the photope¬
riod was kept constant at 14 hours of light, 10 hours of darlmess per day.

The germination rates of plants whose elaiosomes were experimentally removed
were compared to controls using the^^ test.

RESULTS

Of the five species examined, two (Asarum canadense dcndSanpiinaria canaden¬
sis) showed epicotyl dormancy as previously reported by Baskin and Baskin (1986)
ior A. canadense. The radicles of these two species emerged 30-60 days after the
incubators were set at "fall" conditions (Figs. 1-2). Elaiosome removal did not affect
the percentage of seeds which germinated in A. canadense in either 1989-90 or
1990-91 (Table 2, Fig. 1). The average seed of^. canadense, however, germinated
9-10 days sooner in both years if the elaiosome was removed. Average time to
germination was 89.4 and 42.4 days for experimentals and 98.4 and 52.9 days for
controls in 1989-90 and 1990-91, respectively.

Elaiosome removal did significantly affect the final percentage of S. canadensis
which germinated in both years of the experiment (Table 2, p,X^ test). Germina¬
tion also began earlier when elaiosomes were removed, especially in the 1990-91
experiment (Fig. 2).

Two species required cold stratification for germination. That is, after being
kept in "fall" temperatures for three months, germination began only after exposure
to temperatures of 5^C. Dicentra cucullaria seeds began germinating 30 days after
being exposed to 5^C temperatures (Fig. 3). Jeffersonia diphylla, however, required
over 100 days at 5^C for germination (with the exception of one seed which
germinated earlier).

In neither of these two species did elaiosome removal have a consistent effect.
The results for £>. cucullaria are contradictory. In 1989-90 none of the experimental
seeds germinated as compared to 11.7% of the controls. In 1990-91, 20.0% of the
experimentals germinated, while the germination rate for controls fell to 6.7%.
Therefore, although the test is significant for each year, the overall result is
inconclusive. In the J. diphylla experiment (Table 2, Fig. 4), the germination rate
was somewhat higher for controls, but the difference was not significant (0.10).

Viola striata does not show a consistent germination pattern, and elaiosome
removal does not significantly affect germination (Table 2, Fig. 5). Germination

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL

65

TABLE 1. Dates and temperature regimes for seed germination experiments conducted in 1989-90
and 1990-91 in which elaiosomes were removed from half of the seeds. All seeds were germinated on
foam pads moistened with distilled water and kept in an incubator. Day length equal 14 hours in all
experiments; high and low temperatures were for 12 hours each per day.

Asarum canadense. Seeds were collected at Ball’s Bluff on Jime 2,

1989 and at Point of Rocks site on June 6, 1990.

Dates

1989-90

Temperature Regime(°C)

Day Night

Simulated

"Season"

6/2-8/21

15

5

Spring

8/21-11/20

28

15

Summer

11720-2/20/90

20

10

FaU

2/20-8/3

5

5

Winter

1990-91

6/7-9/7

28

15

Summer

9/7-1/10/91

20

10

FaU

1/10-6/17

5

5

Winter

Sanguinaria canadensis.

Seeds were collected at Lake Jackson site on

May 29, 1989 and at Point of Rocks on May 22, 1990.

Dates

Temperature Regime(°C)

Simulated

1989-90

Day

Night

"Season"

5/29-6/15

15

5

Spring

6/15-11/20

28

15

Summer

11/20-2/20/90

20

10

Fall

2/20-8/3

5

5

Winter

1990-91

5/22-8/22

28

15

Summer

8/22-11/29

20

10

FaU

11/29-3/8/91

5

5

Winter

Dicentra cucullaria. Seeds were collected at Point of Rocks on May 4,

1989 and at Point of Rocks on May 2, 1990.

Dates

1989-90

— - - — ^ - -

Temperature Regime(°C)

Day Night

Simulated

"Season”

5/5-6/22

15

5

Spring

6/22-11/29

28

15

Summer

11/29-2/20/90

20

10

Fall

2/20-8/3

5

5

Winter

1990-91

5/4-8/3

28

15

Summer

8/3-11/3

20

10

FaU

11/3-3/8/91

5

5

Winter

66

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

TABLE!. CONTINUED

Jejfersonia diphylla. Seeds were collected at Point of Rocks on June

12, 1989.

Dates

Temperature Regime(®C)

Simulated

1989-90

Day

Night

"Season”

6/12-8/21

15

5

Spring

8/21-11/20

28

15

Summer

11/20-2/20/90

20

10

Fall

2/20-8/3

5

5

Winter

Viola striata.

Seeds were collected at Ball’s Bluff on June 28, 1989.

Dates

Temperature Regime(°C)

Simulated

1989-90

Day

Night

''Season"

6/30-8/21

15

5

Spring

8/21-11/20

28

15

Summer

11/20-2/20/90

20

10

Fall

2/20-8/3

5

5

Winter

TABLE 2. Final results of germination experiments in which elaiosomes were removed from half of
the seeds while intact seeds served as controls. Percent germination is followed in parenthesis by the
number germinated/sample size. Significant values are noted.

Species

Year

Controls

Elaiosomes

Removed

Asarum

canadense

1989- 90

1990- 91

46.7%

88.3%

(28/60)

(53/60)

51.7%

91.7%

(31/60)

(55/60)

0.30

0.37

Sanguinaria

canadensis

1989- 90

1990- 91

30.0%

13.3%

(18/60)

(8/60)

81.7%

46.7%

(49/60)

(28/60)

32.6^

16.0^

Dicentra

cucullaria

1989- 90

1990- 91

11.7%

6.7%

(7/60)

(4/60)

0.0%

20.0%

(0/30)

(12/90)

4.42^

0.62^

Jejfersonia

diphylla

1989-90

41.1%

(37/90)

34.4%

(31/90)

0.85

Viola

striata

1989-90

60.0%

(9/15)

80.0%

(12/15)

1.40

<0.001

^0.025 <p <0.050

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL 67

Asarum canadense

89-90 EXP 89-90 CONT 90-91 EXP -b- 90-91 CONT

FIGURE 1. Cumulative number of Asarum canadense seeds which germinated after the incubator
temperatures were set to simulate fall conditions. Exp represents seeds whose elaiosomes had been
removed.

89-90 EXP 89-90 CONT 90-91 EXP 90-91 CONT

FIGURE 2. Cumulative number olSanguinaria canadensis seeds which germinated after the incubator
temperatures were set to simulate fall conditions. Exp represents seeds whose elaiosomes had been
removed.

68

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Dicentra cucullaria

89-90 EXP 89-90 CONT 90-91 EXP -b- 90-91 CONT

FIGURE 3. Cumulative number of Dicentra cucullaria seeds which germinated after the incubator
temperatures were set to simulate winter conditions. Exp represents seeds whose elaiosomes had been
removed.

89-90 EXP -H-- 89-90 CONT

FIGURE 4. Cumulative number of Jejfersonia diphylla seeds which germinated after the incubator
temperatures were set to simulate winter conditions. Exp represents seeds whose elaiosomes had been
removed.

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL

69

Viola striata

DAYS SINCE 20/10 DEGREES (FALL) SETTING

89-90 EXP — 89-90 CONT

FIGURE 5. Cumulative number of Viola striata seeds which germinated after the incubator temper¬
atures were set to simulate fall conditions. Exp represents seeds whose elaiosomes had been removed.

began 7-10 days after the incubator was switched to "fall" temperatures, but then
ceased for over a month. Four months later there was additional germination.
Three months after being shifted to "winter" temperatures (289 days after being
exposed to "fall" temperatures) another group of seeds germinated (Fig. 5). Seeds
whose elaiosomes had been removed germinated at a higher rate (80.0% vs. 60.0%,
Table 2), but the difference is not statistically significant {X^ = 1.4, 0.10).

DISCUSSION

Our results support previous findings (Blois and Rockwood, 1985, 1986, 1987;
Lobstein and Rockwood, 1991) in that, of the species tested, only S.anguinaria
canadensis clearly showed significant enhancement of germination when
elaiosomes are removed. Though germination rate was not affected in either
Jeffersonia diphylla or Asarum canadense^ the time for germination to begin was
reduced in A. canadense with elaiosomes removal. The data suggest a weak positive
effect of elaiosome removal in Dicentra cucullaria and Viola striata, but the results
are contradictory or insignificant. Furthermore, we have previously reported
(Blois and Rockwood, 1987) that elaiosome removal, either by hand or by a
laboratory ant colony, had no effect on the germination rate of D. cucullaria. In
that experiment we obtained a germination rate of over 90% for control seeds as

70

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

well as for both sets of experimental seeds. In experiments with V. pensylvanica
(Blois and Rockwood, 1986, 1987) we also found that elaiosome removal did not
enhance germination.

As found by Baskin and Baskin (1986), the radicles of^. canadense seeds began
to appear after being exposed for 12 hours per day to temperatures of 20°C and
lO^C. We found that this was also true of S. canadensis. As previously reported
(Baskin and Baskin, 1989),/. diphylla seeds only germinated after three months of
"summer" temperatures, three months of "fall" temperatures, and about 100 days at
5^C (Fig. 4). D, cucullaria needed a similar treatment, but began germinating 30
days after exposure to 5^C. We do not understand the environmental cues needed
for germination of V, striata seeds.

Given that elaiosome removal enhances germination in S. canadensis seeds,
what is the mechanism, and what is the adaptive significance of this inhibition? As
for the mechanism, at present we can only speculate as to whether the elaiosome
physically prevents the imbibition of water needed for germination or whether there
is a chemical in the elaiosome which prevents germination. Detailed microscopic
studies and further chemical analysis of the S. canadensis elaiosome are needed.
At present we only have information on the hpid portion of the elaiosome
(Kusmenoglu et al., 1989).

Given the ecophysiology of seed germination in S. canadensis, radicles would
be expected to emerge in October in the field, as was found for A. canadense by
Baskin and Baskin (1986). If ants have not yet removed the elaiosome, would it still
be present 4-5 months after being shed from the fruit, or would it have decomposed?
In our laboratory the elaiosomes turned black but were still present at the conclu¬
sion of the experiment. In the soil, bacteria and fungi would presumably decom¬
pose the elaiosome, thereby removing amy inhibition to germination. Still, is there
adaptive significance to germination enhancement after elaiosome removal? Per¬
haps elaiosome removal, either by ants or by decomposition, would be correlated
with favorable conditions for growth of the S. canadensis seedling, and elaiosome
presence would be a signal that conditions are not yet favorable for germination.
If a S. canadensis seed does not begin germination within six months of dispersal,
would it still be viable twelve months later? That is, how long can a seed wait to
germinate before it loses its viability? No data exist on this last question, to our
knowledge.

The interesting possibihty exists, then, that the evolutionary syndrome of seed
dispersal by ants includes enhancement of germination as one of the benefits for
the plants. Though only S. canadensis shows a consistent germination effect, we
beheve there remains a great deal to learn about this aspect of myrmecochory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The two authors collaborated on all phases of the study, including field collec¬
tions, laboratory work, data analysis and development of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1985a. Epicotyl dormancy in seeds of Cimicifuga

racemosa and Hepatica acutiloba. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 112: 253-257.

Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1985b. Seed germination ecophysiology of the

woodland spring geophyte E/yt/troAu’w/n albidum. Bot. Gaz. 146: 130-6.

ELAIOSOME REMOVAL

71

Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1986. Seed germination ecophysiology of the wood¬
land \vQ,rh Asarum canadense. Amer. Mid. Nat. 116: 132-9.

Baskin, J.M. and C.C. Baskin. 1989. Seed germination ecophysiology oiJeffersonia
diphylla, a perennial herb of mesic deciduous forests. Amer. J. Bot. 76:
1073-1080.

Beattie, Andrew J. 1985. The evolutionary ecology of ant-plant mutualisms. Cam¬
bridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 182 pp.

Beattie, A.J. and D.C. Culver. 1981. The guild of myrmecochores in the herbaceous
flora of West Virginia forests. Ecol. 62: 107-115.

Blois, Marion C. and L.L. Rockwood. 1985. Effect of elaiosome removal on
germination in an ant-dispersed plant. Va. J. Sci. 36:118.

Blois, Marion C. and L.L. Rockwood. 1986. Effects of elaiosome removal on
germination of several ant-dispersed plants. Va. J. Sci. 37:77.

Blois, Marion C. and L.L. Rockwood. 1987. Influence of elaiosome removal on
germination in several ant-dispersed plants: an update. Va. J. Sci. 38: 92.

Brew, C.R., D J. O'Dowd, and I.D. Rae. 1989. Seed dispersal by ants: behavior-re¬
leasing compounds in elaiosomes. Oecologia 80: 490-7.

Culver, D.C. and A.J. Beattie. 1978. Myrmecochoryin dynamics of seed-ant
interactions in some West Virginia species. J. Ecol. 66: 53-72.

Culver, D.C. and A.J. Beattie. 1980. The fate oiViola seeds dispersed by ants. Amer.
J. Bot. 67: 710-14.

Gates, B.N. 1942. The dissemination by ants of the seeds of bloodroot, Sanguinaria
canadensis. Rhodora 44: 13-15.

Hanzawa, F.M., AJ. Beattie, and D.C. Culver. 1988. Directed dispersal: demo¬
graphic analysis of ant-seed mutualism. Amer. Nat. 131: 1-13.

Heithaus, E.R. 1981. Seed predation by rodents on three ant-dispersed plants. Ecol.
62: 136-145.

Horowitz, C.C. 1981. Analysis of how ant behaviors affect germination in a tropical
myrmecochore Calatheamicrocephala (Marantaceae): microsite selection and
aril removal by the neotropical ants Solenopsis odontomachus (Formicidae).
Oecologia 51: 47-52.

Horowitz, C.C. and A.J. Beattie. 1980. Ant-dispersal of Calathea (Marantaceae)
seeds by carnivorous Ponerines (Formicidae) in a tropical rainforest. Amer.
J. Bot. 67: 721-6.

Kusmenoglu, S., L.L. Rockwood, and M.R. Gretz. 1989. Fatty acids and
diacylglycerols from elaiosomes of some ant-dispersed seeds. Phytochemistry
28: 2601-2.

Lobstein, Marion B. and L.L. Rockwood. 1991. Effects of elaiosome removal on
germination of seeds: a research summary. Va. J. Sci. 42: 186.

Marshall, D., A J. Beattie, and W.E. Bollenbacher. 1979. Evidence for diglycerides
as attractants in an ant-seed interaction. J. Chem. Ecol. 5: 335-344.

Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas. U. N. C. Press.

Rockwood, L.L. and M. Blois. 1986. Effects of elaiosome removal on germination
of two ant-dispersed plants. Amer. J. Bot. 73: 675.

Schemske, D.W. 1978. Sexual reproduction in an Illinois population of Sanguinaria
canadensis. Amer. Mid. Nat. 100: 261-268.

72

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Skidmore, B.A. and E.R. Heithaus. 1988. Lipid cues for seed-carrying by ants in
Hepatica americana. J. Chem. Ecol. 14: 2185-2196.

Smith, B.H., M.L. Rossheim, and K.R. Swartz. 1986. Reproductive ecology of
Jejfersonia diphylla (Berberidaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 73: 1416-26.

MINUTES

73

Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

November 15, 1992 University of Virginia

Present: Golde Holtzman (President), Gerald Taylor, Jr. (Past
President), Richard Brandt (Past Past President), Michael Bass
(Past Past Past President; Chairman, Nominations and Election
Committee), Lisa Alty (Secretary), Ralph P. Eckerlin (Treasurer),

Blanton M. Bruner (Exec, Secretary/Treasurer), Art Burke
(Chairman, Finance Committee), Don Cottingham (VJAS Director),

Wilham D, Check (1993 Local Arrangements Chair), Jim Martin
(Editor, Virginia Journal of Science)

The meeting was called to order at 10:06 a.m. by President Holtzman. Dr.
Holtzman asked that those present introduce themselves. The agenda for the
meeting, as proposed and distributed by Dr. Holtzman, was adopted.

The minutes from the Executive Committee meeting of May 20 and 22, 1992
were distributed. Michael Bass moved that the two sets of meetings be approved.
The motion was seconded and the minutes were approved unanimously.

OFFICER’S REPORTS
President's Report - Golde Holtzman

1. The schedule for future meetings of the executive committee was presented.
The committee will meet at ODU on Sunday, February 28, 1993 and during the
annual meeting on Wednesday, May 19.

2. Dr. Holtzman reappointed Dr. Wilham Banks to be the VAS representative
to the Jeffress and Gwathmey Memorial Trust. This wiU be the third and final year
that he is ehgible to serve. Dr. Banks has been highly praised by the director of the
trust, Mr, J. W. Jenkins, for his service.

Ertle Thompson has been reappointed as representative to AAAS for an
additional year beginning on May 22, 1992.

3. Glenn L. McMuhen, who has been the official archivist

of the Academy for many years, has resigned from his position at VPI and with
the Academy. Laura K. Smith, VPI Newman Library Manuscripts Archivist, will
be the interim official archivist until a replacement has been appointed. The VJAS
records, including the files of E. L. Wisman, A. B. Niemeyer, Jr., and John L. Hess
were received on July 2, 1992.

4. The Awards Committee is working on the logistics for presenting awards for
the best VAS student paper in each section. Several sections already have endowed
awards, they include:

Section Award

Astronomy, Math, and Physics Carpenter

Botany Wilham and Mary Baker Award

Chemistry Alice M, Bruner Award

Discussion ensued about how the student papers should be given on Thursday
so that the award could be presented at the Academy Conference on Thursday
evening. Several sections, namely Medical Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, and Sta-

74

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

tistics, have papers on Friday and may not be able to finish judging on Thursday.
These sections may present the award from the previous year.

Arthur Burke expressed the hope that each section could try to endow then-
award so that an honorarium would be generated by the endowment each year. He
also brought up the concern that the awards among sections be uniform in some
manner. He recommended that the Awards Committee address this issue and
report back to the Executive Committee. Dr. Holtzman said he would ask the
Awards Committee to report to the Executive committee about this at the next
Executive committee meeting. Dr. Taylor suggested that the certificates of award
also be uniform among sections and be representative of the Academy as a whole.

5. Dr. Holtzman reported briefly on the progress of Carvel Blair and the
Committee on the Environment regarding the 1990-91 Parramore Island field trial
of the Wistar vaccine against wildlife rabies.

6. Dr. Brandt, Chair, Long Range Planning Committee

reported on the future meeting sites:

Year

Location

Local Arrangements Chair (LAC)

1993

ODU

William D. Check

1994

JMU

Kent Moore and Diane Spresser

1995

VMIAV&L

Rae Carpenter

1996

VCU

Thomas Haas

1997

VPI (75th anniversary meeting)

1998

GMU

George Mushrush

Future meetings at UVA and W&M were also discussed.

7. Dr. Holtzman had asked the membership committee to nurture new sections,
revive biomedical and general engineering, and start biophysics. Jim O’Brien has
found new officers for biomedical and general engineering. Nothing yet has been
done about biophysics. New sections (archaeology; agriculture, forestry and aqua¬
culture; geography; and computer science) seem to be doing well.

8. Dr. Holtzman introduced the ongoing work of the Publications and Publicity
Committee. The need for a new

brochure was discussed. Dr. Brandt, Dr. Hugo Seibel, and Frank Leftwich have
addressed this in membership committee and Dr. Brandt presented suggested
revisions to the old brochures. Discussion about revisions ensued. Dr. Holtzman
suggested that a separate brochure be generated for soliciting business members
and business sponsorship of the Academy.

Dr. Holtzman offered five copies of the James River Basin. Past. Present and
Future (1950) and five VAS memberships to WVTF public radio as part of their
fall semiannual fund drive. All five books and two of the VAS memberships were
claimed for a donation to the radio station. Dr. Holtzman asked the committee to
approve his intention of offering the books to five other public radio stations for
their spring drives.

Jim Martin was reappointed to Editor of the Virginia Journal of Science, his
term expires in 1995. He is in the final phases of finishing the directory. Deadlines
for the Virginia Scientists were given:

Deadline Issue

Nov 16 92 111(2)93 Jan

Feb 1 93 III(3) 93 Mar

MINUTES

75

Bruce Wallace at VPI has written a Worldwatch commentary for Virginia
Scientists and has agreed to give the 1993 Negus Lecture. Dr. Holtzman presented
his idea that the Negus Lecture be cosponsored with another Virginia scientific
organization to widen the appeal and scope of the event. A tentative speaker for
the Jeffers lecture is an astronaut from NASA.

9. Dr. Holtzman reported on the number of business and institutional members:

Institutional Sustaining 27

Business Regular 9

Business Contributing 1

Business Sustaining 3

Total 40

Business membership is declining and institutional membership renewal has
been sporadic.

10. The Fellows have agreed to work on completing a history of the Academy
for the 75th annual meeting in 1997 at VPI. Dr. Holtzman suggested that this might
be done as a masters thesis work at VPI history department.

11. Discussion of calendar for renewal of appointments to be generated by Dr.
Holtzman.

President-Elect's Report - Golde Holtzman for Jim O’Brien

1. Jim has worked on the revival of the Biomedical and General Engineering
section.

2. The Call for Papers was sent to Blanton Bruner to be distributed to the
membership.

Secretary's Report - Lisa Alty

No report.

Treasurer's Report - Ralph Eckerlin

1. No treasurers report.

2. He mentioned announcements for two symposia: James

River Symposium and New River Symposium. He intends to distribute copies
of announcements to members of Council.

3. Ralph Eckerlin showed a membership renewal notice that was an envelope
and suggested that this was an attractive way to send out renewal notices. He passed
this on to Dr. Brandt and the membership committee.

4. For the annual meeting he suggested getting reusable plastic cups with the
VAS logo for coffee instead of throwaway plastic or styrofoam cups. Discussion
about cost of the cups, selling the cups, and the advertising aspect ensued. Dr.
Holtzman mentioned that giving the cups away in the exhibitionarea would get the
juniors into that area.

Immediate Past President - Gerald Taylor Jr.

Dr. Taylor mentioned a future meeting with the Science Museum of Virginia
director to discuss the future possibility of a paid director of the VJAS to be housed
in the Science Museum. Dr. Taylor suggested to the President that Don Cottingham
be appointed to the Futures committee.

76

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

VJAS Director - Don Cottingham

1. Don Cottingham reported that thirty science clubs have registered to partic¬
ipate in the VJAS meeting. The deadline for registration is December 31, 1992 and
he expects most around that time. Participation in 1992 was 131 clubs. An encour¬
aging note

is that five new clubs are registered among this first thirty. One of the new
director’s goals was to extend participation in VJAS to new areas of Virginia.

2. Attended the Virginia Association of Science Teachers (VAST) meeting in
October and manned a VJAS booth. One hundred teachers stopped by.

3. Mr. Turner, Richmond Association of Engineers wants to set up an award
for VJAS. Don Cottingham sent him a Handbook and will contact him again.

4. American Tobacco Company paid for two editions of the Proceedings at a
cost of $18,000. Am. Tobacco’s publications department is looking at ways of
changing the format and presentation of the publication.

Don Cottingham is looking at saving money by sending the Proceedings out on
disk to each school rather than printing so many expensive copies.

5. Development of aw£U*d money is coming along. The

inequity of the Science teachers award and the club sponsor award was men¬
tioned.

Executive Secretary-Treasurer - Blanton Bruner

1. Invoices for dues will go out by Dec. 1.

2. Blanton Bruner and Arthur Burke devised a budget for 1993. Arthm* Burke
presented the budget with special mention about funds which were transferred
from reserve funds to trust, which generates more income. Arthur Burke estimates
that with

the VJAS awards money being generated by Don Cottingham, the Academy
will be within the budget for 1993.

LocaLAirangemeuts Committee Report - WUUam Check

1. Bill Check said that the VJAS meeting room crunch will work out. All senior
academy meetings will be in the Webb

Center.

2. Housing. Junior academy will be in dorm rooms. The

costs to the juniors were presented. Senior academy may be

housed in two bedroom, on-campus apartments or in a hotel across the street
from ODU. The costs of both arrangements were presented and discussed.

3. Exhibits will be in the Webb Center.

Old Business

Arthm* Bmke invited Joe Exline to Council to comment on VQuest. He
mentioned a February meeting of VQuest in Norfolk.

Gerald Taylor mentioned the need for clarifying the Virginia Scientists editor
position in terms of length of appointment and membership to Council.

New Business

No new business.

Concluding Remarks - Golds Holtzman

The local arrangements meeting at ODU was indicative of a good start for the
May annual meeting. The meeting was adjomned at 12:39 p.m.

MINUTES

77

Council Meeting Minutes

November 15, 1992 University of Virginia

Present: Golde Holtzman (President), Gerald Taylor, Jr. (Past President),
Richard Brandt (Past Past President), Michael Bass (Past Past Past President;
Chairman, Nominations and Election Committee), Lisa Alty (Secretary), Ralph P.
Eckerlin (Treasmer), Blanton M. Brimer (Exec. Secretary/Treasurer), Art Burke
(Chairman, Finance Committee), Don Cottingham (VJAS Director), William D.
Check (1993 Local Arrangements Chair), Jim Martin (Editor, Virginia Journal of
Science^ Greg Cook (Editor, Virginia Scientists). Kent Moore (1994 Local Ar¬
rangements Co-Chair), Ertle Thompson (AAAS representative), D. Rae Carpen¬
ter, Jr. (Chair, Trust Committee), J. J. Murray (Co-chair, Awards comm.), Elsa Q.
Falls (Co-chair, Awards), Carolyn Conway (Co-chair, Awards), Carvel Blair
(Chnm., Comm, on the Environment; councilor, environmental sciences), Vera
Remsburg (Trustee, Science Museum of Virginia), Jack Gentile (Councilor, Ge¬
ography), Penny Pagoda (CoCouncdor, Biomedical and General Engineering),
Rosemary Barra (Councilor, Biology), Thomas Teates (Councilor, Education),
Sandra Welch (Councilor, Medical Sciences), Eleni D. Achilleos (CoCouncilor,
Biomedical and General Engineering)

The meeting was called to order at 1:15 p.m. Dr. Holtzman welcomed everyone
and thanked Ertle Thompson for arranging the day’s meetings. Those present
introduced themselves. Dr. Holtzman mentioned that the local arrangements
co-chair for 1994, Kent Moore was present. The agenda for the meeting, as
distributed by Dr. Holtzman, was adopted. The minutes for council meetings of
May 20 and 22 were distributed by Carolyn Conway, past secretary. Don
Cottingham moved that the minutes be accepted and the minutes were approved.

OFFICERS REPORTS

President’s Report - Golde I. Holtzman

1. The schedule for future meetings of the executive committee, council, and
the VJAS committee was presented. The council will meet at ODU on Sunday,
February 28, 1993 and during the annual meeting on Wednesday, May 19.

2. Dr. Holtzman reappointed Dr. WiUiam Banks to be the VAS representative
to the Jeffress and Gwathmey Memorial Trust. Dr. Banks has been highly praised
by the director of the trust, Mr. J. W. Jenkins, for his service.

Ertle Thompson has been reappointed as representative to AAAS for an
additional year beginning on May 22, 1992.

3. Glenn L. McMullen, who has been the official archivist of the Academy for
many years, has resigned from his position at VPI and with the Academy. Laura K.
Smith, VPI Newman Library

Manuscripts Archivist, will be the interim official archivist until a replacement
has been appointed. The VJAS records, including the files of E. L. Wisman, A. B.
Niemeyer, Jr., and John L. Hess were received on July 2, 1992.

4. The report of the Long Range Planning Committee to the President gave

these future meeting sites:

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Year

Location

Local Arrangements Chair (LAC)

1993

ODU

William D. Check

1994

JMU

Kent Moore and Diane Spresser

1995

VMIAV&L

Rae Carpenter

19%

VCU

Thomas Haas

1997

VPI (75th anniversary meeting)

1998

GMU

George Mushrush

5. Dr. Holtzman praised the ongoing work of the Pubhcations and Pubhcity
Committee. He mentioned particularly Greg Cook’s work on publicity and on the
Virginia Scientists.

Dr. Holtzman offered five copies of the James RiverBasin Past. Present and
Future (1950) and five VAS memberships to WVTF pubhc radio as part of their
fall semiannual fund drive. All five books and two of the VAS memberships were
claimed for a donation to the radio station. Dr. Holtzman asked the pubhcity
committee to contact five other pubhc radio stations for their spring drives.

The deadlines for the Virginia Journal of Science and the Virginia Scientists
were given:

Deadline Issue

Nov 16 92 111(2)93 Jan

Feb 1 93 III(3) 93 Mar

6. A hst of the numbers of institutional and business members was given. Dr.
Holtzman mentioned his intention to improve these numbers by forming a commit¬
tee to work on this issue. The committee wiU be involved in generating a brochure,
sohciting membership, and fundraising from businesses.

President-Elecf s Report - Greg Cook for Jim Q^Brien

1. Jim submitted a written report and has worked on the revival of the Biomed¬
ical and General Engineering section.

Secrglatf^ Report - Usa Ally

Lisa Alty asked that ah motions be submitted in writing. She asked that everyone
sign the attendance sheet.

Treasurer’s Report - Ralph Eckerlin

1. No treasurers report.

2. Mentioned announcements for two symposia: James River Symposium and
New River Symposium. Wih distribute copies of announcements to members of
Council.

3. Mentioned possibihty of selling the James RiYgj BasiQ> Past Present and
Future (1950) at the Science Museum of Virginia.

Executive Secretary-Treasurer - Blanton Bruner

Finance and Endowment Committee - Chair, Arthur Burke

1. Invoices for dues wih go out by Dec. 1.

2. Blanton Bruner and Arthur Burke devised a budget for 1993. Arthm* Burke
presented the budget with special mention about funds which were transferred
from reserve funds to trust, which generates more income. Some discussion ensued
about presenting the budget as a defecit number. Arthur Burke estimates that with

MINUTES

79

the VJAS awards money being generated by Don Cottingham, the Academy will
be within the budget for 1993. The 1993 budget was unanimously approved by
Council.

Immediate Past President - Gerald Tavlor. Jr.

Dr. Taylor mentioned a futme meeting with the Science Museum of Virginia
director, Walter Witschey, to discuss the future possibility of a paid director of the
VJAS to be housed in the Science Museum. They will also discuss the relationship
between the SMV and the VAS and the future timetables for the VJAS and SMV
activities. Dr. Holtzman praised Dr. Taylor and Dr. Carpenter for their work in
cementing this relationship.

Past-Past-President - Richard Brandt

Some funds from friends of the American Cancer Society will be given to the
VJAS for a continuing award for a paper on cancer.

Past-Past-Past-President - Michael Bass

As Chairman of Nominations and Elections Committee, Dr. Bass reported that
the call for nominations for the officers of the Academy will go out with the Call
for Papers in December.

Local Arrangements Committee Report - Golde Holtzman for Dean

Decker

Monies from the University of Richmond meeting have been sent to the
Treasurer. A written report will be given to Council at its next meeting.

Local Arrangements Committee Report - William Check

1. Bill Check reported that all senior academy meetings will be in the Webb
Center.

2. Housing. Junior academy will be in dorm rooms. Senior academy may be
housed in 120 two bedroom, on-campus apartments or in 58 hotel rooms across the
street from ODU. The costs of both arrangements were presented and discussed.

3. A large turnout is expected due to the heavily populated Hampton Roads
location.

4. Dr. Holtzman reported that the speaker for the Negus lecture is Bruce
Wallace from VPI. He is active in Worldwatch movement. Dr. Holtzman presented
his idea that the Negus Lecture be cosponsored with another Virginia scientific
organization to widen the appeal and scope of the event. A tentative speaker for
the Jeffers lecture for the VJAS is an astronaut from NASA.

5. The Biology and Environmental Sciences sections are cosponsoring a sym¬
posium on Urban Ecology.

VJAS Director - PQU...CQttuigharo

1. Don Cottingham reported that thirty science clubs have registered to partic¬
ipate in the May VJAS meeting. The deadline for registration is December 31, 1992
and he expects most aroimd that time. Participation in 1992 was 131 clubs. An
encouraging note is that five new clubs are registered among this first thirty. One

80 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

of the new director’s goals was to extend participation in VJAS to new areas of
Virginia.

2. He is looking into designing a new Handbook.

3. Attended the Virginia Association of Science Teachers (VAST) meeting in
October and manned a VJAS booth. One hundred teachers stopped by.

4. Mr. Turner, Richmond Association of Engineers wants to set up an award
for VJAS. Don Cottingham sent him a Handbook and will contact him again.

5. American Tobacco Company paid for two editions of the Proceedings at a
cost of $18,000. Am. Tobacco’s publications department is looking at ways of
changing the format and presentation of the pubhcation.

Don Cottingham is looking at saving money by sending the Proceedings out on
disk to each school rather than printing so many expensive copies.

5. Development of award money is coming along. Dr. Holtzman praised Dean
Decker and Don Cottingham for their work and the smooth transition in the
running of the VJAS.

Visiting Scientist’s Program - Golde Holtzman for Jack Cranford

The new speakers list should be received by schools in January of 1993. The
expansion of the program to other groups besides secondary schools, such as 4-H
clubs and other civic groups was introduced. This would be a way for the Academy
to get more exposure and opportunities for more people to hear the lectures. The
speakers would have to be notified of the expansion of the program ahead of time.
The teachers have mentioned that the program could be improved if they could
have speakers for the whole day to speak to all of their classes. Mr. Cranford is also
interested in sending out lists every other year instead of every year to save the
Academy money. Dr. Holtzman praised Jack Cranford for his work.

AAAS representative - Ertle Thompson

All is set for the upcoming AJ AS meeting. The current issue of Science contains
the program.

Tiustga-Science Museum of Virgmia - Vera Remsburg

Ms. Remsberg announced the death of a life member and Fellow, Martha
Walsh. She was the last surviving member of the original committee of teachers
which founded the VJAS.

The SMV dinner is January 28. She asked anyone who wishes to attend the
dinner to notify her so that an invitation can be sent.

The Scientists Industrial Award Dinner is March 30. Information on this event
will be in the newsletter.

Biological exhibits have been placed in the Museum for the first time. The
current exhibit is called The Splice of Life.

MINUTES 81

The new director of the Museum is Mr. Walter Witschey and the new Chairman
of the Trustees is the Vice-President of Ethyl Corporation.

■Teffress and Gwathmev Memorial Trust - Dr. William Banks

Dr. Holtzman reappointed Dr. William Banks to be the VAS representative to
the Jeffress and Gwathmey Memorial Trust. Dr. Banks has been highly praised by
the director of the trust, Mr. J. W. Jenkins, for his service.

Staudiog Comruittec Reports

Archives Committee - Golde Holtzman

See President’s report.

Awards Committee - Elsa Q. Falls, co-chair

Announced that the Awards conunittee has received a nomination for Fellow
of the Academy. The committee has begun reviewing worthy candidates for the
Ivey F. Lewis Distiguished Service Award.

The Awards Committee submitted the following motion:

That annual VAS student paper awards be established for each section effective
at the 1993 Annual Meeting. (The Awards Committee will formulate a workable
plan, to be submitted at the February meeting of Council, and will administer the
program.)

Carolyn Conway expanded on the VAS awards program. The committee envi¬
sions that one award be given in each section for the best student paper presented
at the annual meeting. The judging will be left to the discretion of the sections, as
well as the giving of honorary mentions. The awards would be presented at the
Academy Conference by the President, assisted by members of the awards com¬
mittee. The awardees would be mentioned in the Proceedings issue of the Journal
as well as in the Virginia Scientists. The award would be in the form of a certificate,
given by the VAS and may also include a monetary award. Any student who gives
a paper at the meeting would be eligible, regardless of whether they were graduate
or imdergraduate. The student must present the paper and be first or sole author
of the work. The abstract of the paper must be submitted prior to the meeting for
the judges to have in hand at the time of the presentation. The student papers
entered in the award competition should be presented on Thursday to facilitate
judging and presentation of the certificate at Thursday evening’s Academy Confer¬
ence. Each section should appoint three individuals to act as a judging committee,
one might be the editor of the section. Papers will be judged on originality,
substance, quality of the oral presentation and abstract, and response to questions.
If the paper is part of a larger body of work, the student should speak to his or her
specific role in the larger project.Information about the student awards should be
included in the Call for Papers.

Several sections, namely Medical Sciences, Chemistry, Physics, and Statistics,
have papers on Friday and may not be able to finish judging on Thursday. These
sections may present the award from the previous year. Dr. Holtzman mentioned
that their should be guidelines about the uniformity of monetary awards among
sections. Arthur Burke expressed his hope that each section could generate an

82

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

endowment for the monetary award as some sections have already. Dr. Holtzman
also mentioned that each award be given by the Academy President with an officer
of the section to give the monetary prize. The motion was passed imanimously.

Constitution and Bylaws - Jim Martin

Emeritus membership in VAS

At the May Council meeting Hugo Seibel proposed that there be established a
new type of membership in the VAS to be called "emeritus membership". It was
proposed that Article I: Types of Membership and Dues be amended as follows:

Proposed Bylaws Amendment

Section 1. - Current status - "There shall be nine types of membership: regular,
student, contributing, sustaining, life, patron, honorary life, business and emeritus."

Proposed addition of a new Section 7 to Article I of the Bylaws Section 7.
"Emeritus members shall be persons who have been VAS members for at least ten
years and retired from full time employment. These members shall have all the
rights and privileges of regular membership but will be exempt from dues. Also they
will not receive free copies of the Virginia Journ^d of Science.

Eligibihty for Emeritus membership status will be determined by requests to
the Membership Committee."

The motion was passed unanimously.

It was determined that the Geography Section had been officially added in May
so no motion was necessary for its addition.

Dr. Holtzman introduced the possibihty of a student membership which did not
include the mailing of the Journal, except the edition of the Journal which had the
abstracts. He suggested that Article IV, Section 3 of the Bylaws needed to be
amended and asked that the Consititution and Bylaws committee address it.

Committee on the Environment - Carvel Blair

Carvel Blair announced that the Virginia Wildlife Federation will cosponsor
the Negus Lecture and encourage their members to come. He will also invite the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation to come to the lecture.

Report on the Parramore Island field trial of the Wistar vaccine against wildlife
rabies. In a letter to Dr. C. M. G. Buttery, Commissioner of Health, Commonwealth
of Virginia, Dr. Blair sent the following recommendations:

1. That the Commonwealth should get a more complete Final Reportfrom
Wistar.

2. That a long-term study should be done to determine any continuing effects
of the field trial.

3. Defer decisions on adopting the vaccine for primary rabies control unless
further study shows that benefits exceed costs.

4. Please caU on us for help.

Copies of the letter will be sent to Dr. Steve Buttrick, Director of Biological
Conservation, Nature Conservancy Eastern Office, Mr. John Hall, Director, Vir¬
ginia Coast Reserve and Golde Holtzman, President of VAS.

Dr. Holtzman thanked Carvel Blair and the Committee on the Environment,
and the Science Advisory Committee for their work.

MINUTES

83

Fundraising

No Report.

Long Range Planning Committee - Pr. Richard Brandt

Future meeting sites:

Year

Location

Local Arrangements Chair (LAC)

1993

ODU

William D. Check

1994

JMU

Kent Moore and Diane Spresser

1995

VMIAV&L

Rae Carpenter

1996

VCU

Thomas Haas

1997

VPI (75th anniversary meeting)

1998

GMU

George Mushrush

Dr. Holtzman mentioned that every year the past meeting site coordinator
should submit a report that is sent to the next year’s meeting site coordinator.

NommatioQS aud Elections - Michael Bass

Committee has sent out the call for nominees for President, President-elect,
Secretary, and Treasurer with the Call for Papers.

Publicatious aud Publicity - Jim Martin attd Greg Cook

Jim Martin mentioned that the next issue of the Journal will be mailed after the
holidays.

Greg Cook (Editor, Virginia Scientists) mentioned that he and Jim O’Brien
have also been working on the revised membership brochure. He feels that it needs
to be targeted more to students. He said that a separate brochure for business and
institutional membership is also needed.

Jim O’Brien has been doing a great job with publicizing the Academy in the
Tidewater area. Greg asked all of the members of Council to try to generate a
relationship with the local papers so that the VAS will get the same publicity
statewide.

Dr. Brandt mentioned that he needs to meet with Hugo Seibel on the member¬
ship brochure.

Greg Cook mentioned that the Negus lecturer will have anarticle in the next
Virginia Scientists. Dr. Holtzman complemented the work on the Virginia vScien-
tists. saying that he received a thank you letter for publicizing our support of the
November referenda.

Research

No report.

Membership

Working on a new brochure.

Science Advisory Committee

84

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

Dr. Holtzman reported that the new members of this committee includerDr.
Ernest Stout, VPI&SU, Vice-provost for Research
John Scott, UVA

Dave Kranbuell, William and Mary

JohnEck, ODU

All have been or are research officers at their respective universities.

Science Education Committee

No report.

Trust Committee - D. Rae Carpenter. Jr.

Dr. Carpenter gave the complete Trust Committee report. Special mention was
given to the Fellows Fund reaching its goal of $ 10,()00. Also mentioned was that
Research Fund grants could be increased if the committee feels that there are
sufficient meritorious proposals.

Dr. Carpenter mentioned that the ownership certificate for the Bethel High
School Eastman Kodak bonds is now in his safe deposit box in Lexington since Mr.
Bruner no longer keeps a safe deposit box.

There was some discussion about endowing section awards for best paper. Dr.
Carpenter mentioned that $1100 would be enough endowment to generate an
award of $100 each year.

Dr. Brandt and Dr. Holtzman thanked Dr. Carpenter for his excellent work.

Virginia Flora

No report.

Futur£S---.D. Rae. Carpenter, Jr.

Dr. Carpenter has talked with Mr. Witschey at SMV about the joint SMV-VJAS
position. Dr. Witschey seems very interested in getting the General Assembly to
fund this new position.

Sectiou Reports

Aeronautical and Aerospace Science

No report.

Agr.kultm£> Forestry aud Aquaculture

No report.

Ar.gh.asQlQ.gy

No report.

AstrQuomy Mathematics^ and Physics - Dr. Taylor

No report.

Biology - Rosemary Barra

Botany is working on a symposium for the 1993 meeting.

Biomedical and General Engineering - Eleni Achilleos

Eleni Achilleos reported that the section had been reactivated and submitted
the slate of officers:

Co-Chairs: Steven A. Zahorian, ODU

Arthur W. Vogeley, nView Corp.

Secretary: William P. Harrison, Jr., Engineering

Fundmentals

Council Co-representatives:

Penny Pagona, TCC

MINUTES

85

Eleni Achilleos, TCC

Editor: John W. Stoughton, ODU

Vice-chair: Bill Willshire, NASA

Some discussion about who would vote in Council since the section now has

corepresentatives. Dr, Holtzman mentioned that only one of the representatives to
Council could vote.

Botany - Ralph Eckerlin for Marion Lobstein

The section is looking for an invited speaker for the 1993 annual meeting.
Chemistry

No report.

Computer Science - Greg Cook

Lxjoking forward to offering awards to student papers. Education - Tom Teates
Working on building membership in the section. There seems to be a conflict
of VJAS papers and awards with the section’s meeting time dming the annual

meeting.

Environmental Science - Carvel Blair

The section is cooperating with Biology section on the Urban Ecology sympo¬
sium for the annual meeting.

Geography - John Geutile

Trying to recruit members and find donors for the student paper award.

Geology

No report.

Materials Science

No report.

Medical Science - Sandra Welch

Looking for a good meeting this year. Last year had 47 papers.

Microbiology and Molecular Biology

No report.

P^chology - Greg Cook for Jim O’Brien

Jim O’Brien submitted a written motion to allow the Psychology Club at TCC
to sell items with the VAS logo to raise money for their institutional membership.
The motion was withdrawn by Greg Cook after discussion by the Council.
Statistics - Golde Holtzman
Things are going smoothly in the section.

Old Business

Rae Carpenter brought up the sale of the James River Basin Past Present and
Future (1950) . After some discussion about theprice and how to distribute the book,
Michael Bass moved a flat price of $25 for the book to any buyer. The motion was
seconded and unanimously approved by Council.

Dr. Taylor reminded the President that the relationship of the Editor of the
Virginia Scientists to Council and Executive Committee has not been constitution¬
ally determined. Dr. Holtzman said he would ask the Constitution and Bylaws
committee to make a recommendation at the February meeting.

86

VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE

New Business

No new business.

Concluding Remarks - Golde Holtzman

Academy is doing well. Membership in the Junior Academy is growing. We are
falling behind in fundraising and membership in the senior academy (especially
business members). Dr. Holtzman will appoint an ad hoc Committee for a Cam¬
paign on Fundraising and Membership, targeting our 75th anniversary. Members
of the committee will have a four year appointment.

Ertle Thompson was thanked for providing refreshments and Dr. Holtzman was
thanked for lunch.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

NEWS AND NOTES

87

Phylogenetic Systematics Video
Concepts and Application

Copyright 1992

Eugene G. Maurakis and William S. Woolcott
Biology Department
University of Richmond
Richmond, Virginia 23173 USA

Concepts and application of phylogenetic systematics are presented in a two-
part 25 minute video. Part I describes the development of a cladogram. In part II,
cladistics is applied to an ethological phylogenetic analysis of relationships among
cyprinid minnows that breed over gravel substrates. The video, accompanied by an
Instructor’s Manual, is an educational tool that can be used as an introduction to
phylogenetic systematics.

At cost (including postage/handling): US standard video format (NTSC), $55
US; PAL/SECAM format, $ 90 US. Send US check/money order or purchase order
payable to University of Richmond to:

Dr. Eugene G. Maurakis
Biology Department
University of Richmond
Richmond, Virginia 23173
(804) 289-8977

MEMBERSHIP

Membership in the Academy is organized into sections
representing various scientific disciplines as follows:

1.

Agriculture, Forestry and

8.

Geology

Aquaculture

9.

Medical Sciences

2.

Astronomy, Mathematics and

10.

Psychology

Physics

11.

Education

3.

Microbiology and Molecular

12.

Statistics

Biology

13.

Aeronautical and Aerospace

4.

Biology

Sciences

5.

Chemistry

14.

Botany

6.

Materials Sciences

15.

Environmental Science

7.

Biomedical and General

16.

Archaeology

Engineering

17.

Computer Science

18.

Geography

Annual Membership Dues -

Includes subscription to

Virginia Journal of Science

Student .

. $ 10.00

Regular - Individual . . .

25.00

Contributing - Individual

. . .

30.00

Sustaining - Individual .

50.00

Sustaining - Institution .

. 100.00

Business - Regular . . .

. 100.00

Business - Contributing

. 300.00

Business - Sustaining .

. 500.00

Life - Individual .

. 300.00

VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

Date _ _ ^Name (Please Print)

Phone ( ) E-mail

FAXt

Address _

City^ _ _ _ _ _ State Zip

J

Institution or Business _ _ _

Position — Title _ _ _ _

Fields of Interest — Sectbn No.(s) _ ^First No. indicates major interest

Class of Membership Desired _ _ _

Contacted by:

Make chedt payable to VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and send to:
Department ©f Bbi^y„ University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173

Instructions to Authors

All manuscripts and correspondence should be addressed to the Editor. The
Virginia Journal of Science welcomes for consideration original articles and short
notes in the various disciplines of engineering and science. Cross-disciplinary
papers dealing with advancements in science and technolo^ and the impact of
these on man and society are particularly welcome. Submission of an article implies
that the article has not been published elsewhere while under consideration by the
Journal.

Three complete copies of each manuscript an figures are required. It is also
suggested that authors include a 525 diskette in IBM compatible format containing
a text file (ASCII) of the manuscript. Original figures need not be sent at this time.
Aulhois should submit names of three potential reviewers. All manuscripts must
be double-spaced. Do not use special effects such as bold or large print.

The titkj author's name, affiliation, and address should be placed on a cover
page. An abstract (not to exceed 200 words) summarizing the text, particularly the
results and conclusions, is required. The teM should follow the general format used
by professional journals in the author's discipline. Literature cited in the text should
follow the name-year format: (McCaffrey and Dueser, 1990) or (Williams et al,
1990). In the Literature Cited section at the end of the article, each reference should
include the full name of the aEthor(s), year, title of article, title of journal (using
standard abbreviations), volume number and first and last page of the article. For
a book, include author(s), year, title, pages or number of pages, publisher and city
of publication. Examples:

McCaffrey, Cheryl A. and Raymond D, Dueser. 1990. Plant associations of the
Virginia barrier islands. Va, J, Sci, 41:282-299.

Spry, A. 1969, Metamorphic Textures. Pergamon Press, New York. 350 pp.

Each figure and table should be mentioned specifically in the text. All tables,
figures and figure legends should be on a separate pages at the end of the text.

Multiple author papers are required to have a statement in the acknow¬
ledgements indicating the participation and contribution of each author.

After revision and final acceptance of an article, the author will be required to
furnish two error-free copies of the manuscript: 1) typed copy, single spaced, with
tables and figure captions at the end of the document, and one set of original figures,
each identified on the back by figure number and author's name; 2) a 5.25 diskette
in an IBM compatible format containing the text file, tables and figure legends.

Authors will be allowed 15 printed pages (mcluding figures) free, but payment
of $50 per page wfll be charged for the 16th and subsequent pages.

MStllKGTON

co<
< ^ qs.

wap

S?’ <T>

^ 3

o “
o Ci-

^•sl

Is 2

O (W
3 CC
3- O

00

5'

p’

to

VO

*0

VO

J