Bulletin 2016 / 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 A Message from the
Editor
3 A Message from the
President
4 In the Service of the
Authors, Science and
Scientific Community
12 Explanation Is to Be
Found behind the Name of Each Species
16 BES Guides to Better
Science
18 News from IAVS
Working Groups
19 Photo Memories
Date of Publication: June 2016
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 1lmpo”)
of 22with
© International
Association for Vegetation Science
Area of open Cerrado (“campo
ISSN 2415-184X (Online)
© A. Fidelis
Paepalanthus sp.
A Message from the Editor
Welcome and enjoy reading the June issue of our Bulletin!
Maybe it is not a good idea to publish the newsletter in June, when vegetation scientists
from the northern hemisphere are busy with sampling the vegetation, those from the
southern hemisphere are busy with hibernation or writing papers, and all vegetation
scientists from around the world are packing their luggage or finishing their presentations
for the Brazil Symposium.
Nevertheless, I hope the opposite is true. I hope that reading this newspaper will
stimulate your interest in vegetation science and vegetation scientists. I also hope that it
will inspire you in many aspects. Last but not least, I hope that it will be interesting as well
as entertaining for you because we have succeeded in gathering excellent content for this issue!
The IAVS President addresses the readers with a short reflection on the important role of vegetation science
in plant reintroductions and translocations.
Four Chief Editors of the prominent IAVS journals agreed to answer our questions and share their recipes
for writing good reviews, doing editorial work with pleasure, and relaxing effectively. They also share what
scientific literature was most helpful for their personal development.
The interview with Francesco Spada (Rome, Italy) recorded during the 25th Meeting of European Vegetation
Survey in Rome is a reflection of the developments in the European geobotany during the last decades with
plenty of useful ideas for enrichment of recent approaches.
Young-career scientists are invited to use three useful guides to help them with data management, preparing
scientific papers and writing or reading the reviews of scientific papers.
Moreover, you will find the news from the Vegetation Classification working group and some visual reflections
of the past activities of the IAVS.
Our scientific community is not only about the vegetation and vegetation science, it is also about the people.
Because we share the interest in Earth vegetation and the processes forming it, we also share the burden of
modern scientists, including the chase for papers and citations, increased administrative duties, and lack of
time for fieldwork and relaxation. This Bulletin is not intended to make you even busier, but rather to have you
enjoy the positive aspects of our scientific life by means of mutual communication.
Finally, I would like to thank all who contributed to this issue through opinions, pictures, ideas or time.
Monika Janišová
Editor of IAVS Bulletin
© M. Janišová
Flowering rocks in the Bükki Nemzeti Park in Hungary with many lichens and Minuartia frutescens. Szarvaskö, May 2016.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 2 of 22
A Message from the President
Most of the field work of members of my working group Vegetation Ecology and
Conservation Biology at the University of Bremen takes place in the Weser-Elbe region
in NW Germany. What we have noticed over the past 15 years is a somewhat dramatic
decline of many plant species, especially those that are not able to withstand the
widespread land use intensification and eutrophication. According to the most recent
flora for our region, 39% of the species are currently decreasing, whereas only 23% are
increasing (and 38% being more or less stable). This is an alarming signal, more so as a
trend generally holding true in the rest of the country and probably other parts of Europe.
Although sites with suitable habitat conditions are restored in many places, species still
decline simply because they are not capable of dispersing to the new sites in the highly
fragmented landscape. In addition, many species fail to regenerate due to a lack of
disturbances when the natural dynamics in the landscape are prevented, such as in many river valleys. These
problems are reinforced by climate change.
One of the options available to nature conservation managers is plant reintroduction or other forms of
translocation, a tool that has received increasing attention in recent years. A pioneering work describing the
potentials and problems of species translocations is the book by Joyce Maschinski & Kristin E. Haskins on
Plant reintroduction in a changing climate – Promises and perils (Center for Plant Conservation). When I read
this book I became aware that vegetation science plays an important role in developing the tools and improving
the success rate of plant reintroductions: the most frequent reason for the failure of species translocations is an
inadequate assessment of habitat suitability. Vegetation scientists have a particularly good knowledge of the
climatic and edaphic conditions under which different species thrive, and of their preferred plant communities.
Especially for species that are on the brink of extinction, historical vegetation records can help us to identify
potential growing sites to be selected for their reintroduction. Plot-based environmental measurements also
provide important information about the niche optima and limits of species as a basis for conservation and
management actions. Reintroduction trials in river valley plant species in our study region that were conducted
over the past years have been highly successful and offer an example for a fruitful combination of basic and
applied vegetation science.
Martin Diekmann
IAVS President
© M. Diekmann
© M. Diekmann
Two rare and red-listed river corridor plants successfully
reintroduced in the Weser-Elbe region close to Bremen, Germany.
Senecio paludosus in flower at a restoration site at the Ahauser
Bach, and a vital new population of Euphorbia palustris at a
restored lake near the river Wümme.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 3 of 22
In the Service of the Authors,
Science and Scientific Community
Journal of Vegetation Science, the first official journal of the IAVS, was established in 1990 and continues to
publish high-quality papers on all aspects of vegetation science. Applied Vegetation Science was established
in 1998 to encourage publication of papers with a more applied approach to vegetation science.
Who are the people that take care of our manuscripts after they are submitted to international journals,
evaluating, improving and polishing them until they are ready for publication? How do they manage to do
this never-ending job along with working on their own publications? What is the magic source of energy
and knowledge they utilize? With these questions in mind, we interviewed the Chief Editors of the IAVS
journals, Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied Vegetation Science.
Milan Chytrý
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech
Republic
Why did you become a Chief Editor?
I got an offer to become an Associate Editor of
Folia Geobotanica when I was very young, shortly
after defending my PhD. Now, more than 20 years
later, I can hardly understand why Tomáš Herben,
then Chief Editor of Folia, trusted me and took the
risk of involving an unexperienced young man.
I had always liked scientific literature and I felt
working as an Associate Editor might be a good
experience, therefore I accepted. I learned a lot in
Folia, partly from Tomáš, who naturally acted as a
sort of editorial mentor, and especially from my own
work on manuscripts and communication with their
authors. It was a good lesson when sometimes I
identified obvious errors in the work of other people
and immediately realized that I was doing the same
type of errors in my own work but was not aware of
them. After 13 years in Folia, I felt I had been there
for too long and it was time to retire. This was noticed
by Bastow Wilson (then the Chair of Chief Editors
of the IAVS journals), who offered me the role of an
Associate Editor of the Journal of Vegetation Science
in 2006 (after I had served on this journal’s Editorial
Board and as a reviewer for a couple of years).
JVS had always been one of the main sources of
my scientific inspiration, therefore I was happy to
accept this offer although my original intention after
13 years in Folia was to take a few years of rest from
editorial work. When Sandra Díaz retired as a Chief
Editor of the IAVS journals in 2010, I was nominated
and elected by the IAVS Council as her replacement.
What’s the best thing about being a journal
editor?
A good thing is that you have to read a lot of papers
from your broader field, including those that are not
directly related to your own research and that you
© M. Horsák
Milan Chytrý, drinking tea at the camp fire during field
work in northwestern Siberia, with a mosquito net
temporarily pulled up.
would most probably never read. Moreover, you
cannot just simply read them, you also have to think
about them critically, you have to understand to what
extent they are novel and why they are interesting.
This helps you a lot to understand the current trends
in your field, including those that are far beyond your
own research interests. Editorial work is enriching
your knowledge and at the same time you are doing
a service for your scientific community.
How would you characterize a good reviewer?
A good reviewer is critical and helpful at the same
time. She is able to see both whether the study is
technically well performed and whether it advances
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 4 of 22
science, which are two different qualities that do not
need to be correlated. If she identifies a flaw, she
is able to explain clearly why it is a flaw and offer
realistic alternatives for the improvement of the
study. Also, a good reviewer does not try to force
the author to accept her own specific views on the
subject matter; she respects plurality of opinions,
but at the same time she is able to recognize the
borderline between opinions that are scientifically
sound and those that are not. All this requires a lot
of experience. Just as a scientist needs talent and
several years in the field to mature, a reviewer needs
the same to become really good.
How many manuscripts do you usually read per
week and how do you find time to do so?
I am acting as a Receiving Editor of Applied
Vegetation Science, which means I am doing
preliminary evaluation of all the manuscripts
submitted to this journal, deciding whether they are
within the journal scope and whether they are of
sufficient interest to our readers. If they are and if
I don’t detect any serious problems in the scientific
content or the style of presentation, I assign them to
one of our Associate Editor whose expertise is close
to the topic of the submitted paper. Alternatively,
I prepare the decision letter explaining why the
paper is not suitable for the journal. If the decision
is negative, the authors appreciate that it is told to
them quickly, so that they do not lose time and can
submit the paper elsewhere. Therefore I am trying
to process newly submitted manuscripts as soon as
possible after I receive them from the Editorial Office,
usually on the same day. I am also doing final check
of all the accepted manuscripts before they are sent
to production. Currently AVS receives about 15–20
new submissions per month, therefore I cannot read
all of them in detail – that’s the task of the Associate
Editors and reviewers. Nevertheless I spend some
time working for the journals nearly every day.
Editorial work has been a part of my everyday life for
many years, and believe me or not, I like it and find
it very interesting.
How do you relax from science?
Fortunately vegetation science is by no means
monotonous work. We are frequently shifting
between the office work at a computer, fieldwork,
reading literature, plant identification, lectures,
seminars and field trips with students, conferences,
workshops and other kinds of meetings. Because of
this diversity, our work is actually not so tiring. But
when my wife and I want to relax, we often make
a family trip to nature. She is a botanist too, so
we relax by plant hunting, which is more fun than
science (though science is also fun). Our sons do
not seem to share this opinion, asserting that we are
crazy. Maybe they are right.
Which of your own papers do you like most and
why?
Usually the last ones, when they are still fresh.
Which publication (paper or book) affected your
personal scientific development in a positive
way?
Hard to say, they were so many! If I were to
mention just a few, then it would be perhaps Heinz
Ellenberg’s book Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den
Alpen (Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe), which
I consider as a sort of bible of vegetation science
in my region, Central Europe. I was also strongly
influenced by the major Еuropean national vegetation
survey monographs from the 1990s, British
Plant Communities, Die Pflanzengesellschaften
Österreichs and De Vegetatie van Nederland, which
stimulated my own future work on the national
vegetation monograph of the Czech Republic. Last
but not least, I was strongly influenced by Journal
of Vegetation Science, which was the only western
plant ecological journal that our rather devastated
Department at Masaryk University in Brno received
after the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia, in
the early 1990s, when I started my PhD study there.
During those hard times we received it for free, thanks
to generous support from Eddy van der Maarel and
IAVS, and by reading this journal I started to learn
how high-quality scientific work in plant community
ecology should look. As an editor, I am now trying to
return to this journal the knowledge that the journal
gave to me.
© A. Lengyel
Admiring diversity of dry grasslands during the excursion
at the European Vegetation Survey meeting in Slovenia
in 2014.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 5 of 22
Meelis Pärtel
University of Tartu, Estonia
Why did you become a Chief Editor?
During my Master studies at Uppsala University,
I was supervised by Eddy van der Maarel, the first
Chief Editor of the Journal of Vegetation Science.
This was exactly when the journal was launched
and Eddy explained to his graduate students how
to run a scientific journal. It looked very interesting
and I imagined it would be nice to work within such
a complicated system. Shortly after my post-doc, I
was invited to become an Editorial Board member
at the Journal of Vegetation Science. Editorial
Board members are “house referees” who know
the journal’s standards and policies well and are
expected to provide high quality referee reports.
Bastow Wilson, Chair of Editors at that time, sent me
a large manual describing how the process works
through all stages. I enjoyed this work quite a lot.
After my three-year term as Editorial Board member,
I was invited to become an Associate Editor for JVS.
I enjoyed this work even more. Now I was able to
communicate both with authors and referees. At
some editorial meetings it was mentioned that I had
the highest editing load among editors. I did not feel
it. I rarely declined to edit a manuscript since I knew
that this is an important job. If the topic was not too
familiar, I invited more referees. I acted as Associate
Editor for five years. During an IAVS meeting, Bastow
once asked if I could act as temporary Chief Editor
since a former Chief Editor had to leave due to other
obligations. I then saw quite closely how journals
actually function and how much communication and
planning it requires. Soon IAVS Council officially
named me as a Chief Editor. When Bastow retired
in 2013, I was elected by fellow Chief Editors as the
new Chair of Editors.
What’s the best thing about being a journal
editor?
The best thing is to see how good submitted
manuscripts benefit from editing to finally get
published. This means that I can follow directly how
scientific ideas mature, how they are received by
colleagues, and how all this advances the science.
Personally it is the greatest pleasure to work with so
many interesting and talented colleagues.
How would you characterize a good reviewer?
A good referee should be constructive. It is important
to outline not only main shortcomings but also
strengths. Good referees should understand that the
author might have a different perspective than they
do. A good referee is polite, pointing out problems
in the manuscript and not criticizing the author
personally.
How many manuscripts do you usually read per
week and how do you find time to do so?
Currently I work as Chair of the Editors and this
© A. Tennus
Meelis Pärtel giving a presentation in the ceremony
hall of the University of Tartu.
means more work with people than directly with
manuscripts. My task is to coordinate the work of
editors and communicate with IAVS and Wiley,
our publisher. I continuously follow the flow of
manuscripts and general publishing trends in
science. I receive an e-mail copy of each submission
and each editorial decision. Thus, I’m reading several
titles and abstracts each day. Often other editors
ask my opinion of a manuscript. On average, I work
for the Journal of Vegetation Science and Applied
Vegetation Science 1-2 hours per day. Finding time
is challenging. First I flag all e-mails which need
some action. Then I often write “JVS/AVS work”
to my calendar to book time, as I do for my own
research: reserved time for analyses, reading and
writing. Otherwise it is too easy to fill the day with
different meetings or replies to e-mails.
How do you relax from science?
My family is the key player, especially my three
children, aged between 4 and 14, who are effective
in providing an escape from science (although not
relaxation in a strict sense). I live in a old farm house
in the countryside. A local farmer cuts hay from
my grassland but I take care of the garden, mend
buildings, or just take walks and bike rides. During
the evening I try to read novels. Currently I mostly
read children’s books to my youngest daughter.
Which of your own papers do you like most and
why?
This is a difficult question. Nevertheless, I’ll mention
a few papers which have had more impact both on
my own research but hopefully on others as well. The
first might be a paper in Oikos in 1996 where we tried
to find species pools for different vegetation types
in Estonia. We found that local diversity is largely
determined by species pool size. Another paper is
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 6 of 22
© I. Hiiesalu
Collecting Urtica cannabina for the herbarium in
Mongolia.
my first which can be classified as macroecology of
biodiversity. It appeared in Ecology in 2002. I wanted
to know if there is a signal of evolutionary history
in species diversity relationships. I collected casestudies on plant richness-soil pH relationships. It
took some time and required heavy use of interlibrary
loans (we did not have electronic access to journals,
as we do now). I regressed plant richness-soil pH
relationship against latitude and found positive
relationships in temperate and boreal zones and
negative relationships in the tropics. It supported
the idea that a local biodiversity relationship can be
shaped by evolutionary history at the regional scale.
A paper addressing the importance of vegetation
history appeared in Ecology Letters in 2006. There we
demonstrated the existence of extinction debt in seminatural grassland communities, since contemporary
richness was related to site area and connectivity 70
years ago, but not with current landscape features. I
would also like to mention a conceptual paper which
appeared in Trends in Ecology and Evolution in
2011. There we defined dark diversity – the set of
species which are currently absent from your study
site but which likely can be there – in other words, the
absent portion of site-specific species pool. When
suggesting this term we aimed to make the species
pool concept more practical, having a site-specific
perspective. Finally I should mention a short paper
which appeared in the Journal of Vegetation Science
in 2012. Together with colleagues we looked for
world records of plant species richness. We found
© A. Helm
During the fieldwork in Russian grasslands.
highest known richness number at different samples
scale, ranging from 1 mm2 and to 1 ha. All the world’s
records formed a straight line on a log-log scale and
contained, interestingly enough, just two habitat
types: temperate grasslands at smaller scales and
tropical rainforests at larger scales. Enough for now;
my current works are very interesting to me as well
but need yet to prove themselves.
Which publication (paper or book) affected your
personal scientific development in a positive
way?
The most influential publications were certainly
those which I read as a young PhD student. I
would mention two. The first is a conceptual paper
published my PhD supervisor Martin Zobel in Oikos
in 1992, titled “Plant species coexistence: the role
of historical, evolutionary and ecological factors”.
I found this paper independently when it was
published. We had not discussed these topics before
with Martin since my thesis was planned to address
grassland restoration. As soon as I had read another
conceptual paper by Ove Eriksson, in Oikos in 1993,
“The species-pool hypothesis and plant community
diversity”, I felt that this is exactly the topic I wanted to
develop. Both papers were theoretical and even a bit
skeptical that these hypotheses can ever be tested.
I wanted to prove that there are ways to develop the
species pool concept by estimating species pool
sizes. Actually we need to estimate dark diversity
since observed diversity can be measured, this is the
topic I’m currently still working on.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 7 of 22
Alessandro Chiarucci
University of Bologna, Italy
Why did you become a Chief Editor?
I still remember my first experience with the Journal
of Vegetation Science, in the period before starting
my PhD at the University of Siena. Stefano, another
student in the Department, presented this new, very
modern, journal to me. We discussed at length the
editorial of the first issue by Eddy van der Maarel
and the policy of launching this new journal after the
glorious history of the previous IAVS official journal,
Vegetatio. In the same year, we both attended the
IAVS meeting in Eger, Hungary, but our poster was
too basic for the Journal of Vegetation Science,
so we did not submit it. However, a few years
later, I attended the International Symposium on
Community Ecology and Conservation Biology, held
in Bern in August 1994. Later in that year, I submitted
a paper to the Journal of Vegetation Science, for the
symposium proceedings. The editor, commenting
my paper, stated that he was able to see “some
more than the run-of-the-mill stuff” I presented and
provided a lot of comments to improve my paper.
The editor, who was Bastow, then accepted the
paper. Later, he invited me to review some papers
and then to enter into the Editorial Board. In 2002,
Bastow asked me to become an Associate Editor,
because of my heavy contribution to review papers.
This was unexpected to me and I tried to work as
hard as possible. A few years later, in 2006, Peter
White retired as Chief Editor, and Bastow invited me
to become Chief Editor and proposed my name to
the Governing Board of IAVS. I was really honoured
and even surprised at such recognition. From that
moment, I have tried to contribute to the growth of
what vegetation scientists across the planet consider
“the Journal”.
What’s the best thing about being a journal
editor?
Being a journal editor takes a lot of time and sometimes
this is subtracted from your own research. Despite
© C.Beierkuhnlein
Alessandro Chiarucci near plants of Echium wildpretii subsp. trichosiphon (Svent.) Bramwell (Boraginaceae), near of
Roque de Los Muchachos, Caldera de Taburiente National Park, La Palma, Canary Island
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 8 of 22
this, it is really appealing to see the processes by
which manuscripts grow and become published.
Often it is possible to recognise a good manuscript
from the very beginning, but I really like the effort it
takes to be critical and search for problems as well
as for potential values in a submitted manuscript. It
is very stimulating.
How would you characterize a good reviewer?
Science is a product of human beings and, as such,
it is not perfect. Similarly, referees are not perfect
and do not hold the truth when commenting on or
criticising a paper. However, science is one of the
best products of humans and good papers could
hardly exist without good reviewers. The best
reviewers are those who are able to see if a paper
could have value, despite its limitations and provide
comments to strengthen it. Of course, good referees
can also identify fraud or other negative aspects of
a paper.
How many manuscripts do you usually read per
week and how do you find time to do so?
Valério and I manage the papers at a very early
stage and this is why I have a very big load of papers
to read every second month. In the month that I act
as receiving editor, I have many papers to read,
more than one per day on average, so I have to read
them rather quickly. It is usually easy to identify very
good papers to pass to the Coordinating Editors and
very weak or out of scope, papers to be immediately
rejected. More attention has to be given to the grey
papers, those which are not excellent nor really weak
or out of scope. These papers need to be carefully
read and they may be about half of the total, so
some three-five papers per week. The final check
of papers is another reading process, which takes
some time, and this amounts to about 100 papers
per year, shared by me and Valério.
fundamental issues I had learnt in my formation and
to reflect on what a plant community really is.
Which publication (paper or book) affected your
personal scientific development in a positive
way?
Many papers were important to me and they changed
in the different periods. In the early periods of my
activity I was attracted by multivariate methods and I
studied a lot of papers by János Podani, Laco Mucina,
Eddy van der Maarel, László Orlóci, and Enrico Feoli.
Regarding books, I really liked the English version
of “Plant Sociology” by Braun-Blanquet. Despite my
critical approach to the sampling methods used by
phytosociologists, I found the original book of the
father of phytosociology very modern for its period. I
really liked many papers by Mike Palmer, who is one
of the person most appreciated by me among present
vegetation scientist, together with J. Bastow Wilson.
Then, if we wish to refer to very specific papers
which contributed to my ideas, I would mention two
papers out of traditional vegetation science, one
published in 1994 by Colwell and Coddington in the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London (“Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through
extrapolation”), and one published in 2001 by
Gotelli and Colwell in Ecology Letters (“Quantifying
biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the
measurement and comparison of species richness”).
I am always attracted by methods and these papers
stimulated my research a lot.
How do you relax from science?
I really like science and do not really need to relax
from it. When I am at home or on holidays I read
scientific books, so going not that far from my job.
However, I also like to work in the garden which is
mentally relaxing to me. I also like swimming and
biking when I have time.
Which of your own papers do you like most and
why?
I have always tried to write nice papers, so the most
modern ones should be the best ones. However,
when I read or work on my CV, I realise that I am
linked to the papers I did in the early stages of my
career. They were not the best papers, but they
were those that contributed to my personal growth.
After publication, I found that I have to work to
make the methods or the approach better and this
has contributed so much to my personal scientific
formation. I have many papers that were important to
me, but I would mention a paper in Folia Geobotanica
in 2007, in the writing of which I had to discuss all the
© J. Dengler
Valério Pillar and Alessandro Chiarruci discussing during
the IAVS Council Meeting
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 9 of 22
Valério Pillar
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Why did you become a Chief Editor?
My first contact with the Journal of Vegetation
Science (JVS) was when Eddy van der Maarel
visited László Orlóci during my PhD studies in
London, Canada, to discuss the foundation of the
new journal. Since 1990, I have acted as reviewer
for JVS; as well for Applied Vegetation Science since
its launching. I joined the Editorial Board in 2000,
and in 2003 became an Associate Editor for JVS.
With the retirement of Bastow Wilson in 2013, I was
appointed one of the Chief Editors for both journals.
For me the IAVS journals have been inspiring and
one of the first choices for the publication of most of
my own and my students’ work on plant community
ecology. I was happy to contribute as much as
possible to the journals by accepting referee and
editor assignments. As a Chief Editor, the level
of involvement increased a lot, as expected, but
the tasks are scientifically exciting and personally
rewarding.
What’s the best thing about being a journal
editor?
You have to quickly read a manuscript with an
eye on the potential interest of the questions, and
whether it fits into our scope and minimal standards
regarding the sampling/experimental design, as well
as the coherence and quality of the analysis and
presentation. Often we have to exchange opinions
with other editors about a specific manuscript or
about journal policy, which is essential to maintain
consistency as much as possible in our decisions.
How would you characterize a good reviewer?
A good reviewer should not only be capable of
identifying the qualities and possible flaws and
inconsistencies in a manuscript, but also whether it is
framed in a way to attract the interest of the readers.
He/she should also distinguish the problems that
can be solved in a revision from those that could
not and would justify the plain rejection of the
manuscript. Sometimes the questions and the data
have potential and with some effort the authors may
be able to improve the analysis and presentation in a
revision, for which a good reviewer should help with
suggestions. Of course, this implies that the reviewer
should also be willing to review the manuscript again
if necessary.
© R. Rocha
Field excursion to the grassland ecosystems of the Jarau hill, Rio Grande do Sul state, southern Brazil, 30°11’3.99”S,
56°30’55.43”W. The whole rocky formation, forming a circle, resulted from the impact of a meteorite.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 10 of 22
How many manuscripts do you usually read per
week and how do you find time to do so?
I have been acting as Receiving Editor for JVS
together with Alessandro Chiarucci. We shift our roles
every second month. Also, we often ask for second
opinions from each other and from the other editors.
JVS is receiving an average of 35 new manuscripts
every month, but the temporal distribution is not evenly
distributed. Thus, it is a relentless task reading new
manuscripts, assigning them to an Associate Editor,
or deciding on immediate rejection. Also, when a
manuscript is eventually accepted, the Receiving
Editor is in charge of making the final checks before
the Editorial Office sends it to production, which may
require some exchange with the Associate Editor that
coordinated the review process. I usually work on
these tasks at home at night or early in the morning.
Sometimes other duties and travel may prevent me
dealing with the journal tasks every day, which will
quickly generate a backlog.
How do you relax from science?
Family, friends, cooking, housekeeping, politics, and
photography take me away from scientific tasks. But
for me it is difficult to temporally separate science from
other interests; most often they intermingle. When
traveling, even with a scientific purpose, I usually
relax by photography. Computer programming is
also relaxing, though it is part of science.
Which of your own papers do you like most and
why?
I highlight the series of papers with the framework for
trait-based and phylogenetic analysis of community
data, the papers on permutation and bootstrap
methods in multivariate data analysis, and the ones
on the paleoecology, conservation and management
of non-forest ecosystems in Brazil. More recently I
have enjoyed working on questions related to the
linking of biodiversity to ecosystem functioning and
stability.
Which publication (paper or book) affected your
personal scientific development in a positive
way?
I mention the authors that were the most influential
ones during my early learning as a MSc and PhD
student on plant community ecology: Warming,
Clements, Gleason, Braun-Blanquet, David Goodall,
Eddy van der Maarel, László Orlóci, Enrico Feoli and
János Podani.
© J. Šibík
Valério Pillar (upper row, third from the left) in a group of participants of the IAVS Post-symposium excursion to
Slovakia, 2015, near the Poľský hrebeň Saddle in the Vysoké Tatry Mts.
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 11 of 22
Explanation Is to Be Found behind
the Name of Each Species
During the 25th meeting of the European Vegetation Survey (EVS) working group, which was held in Rome
in April 2016, I used the opportunity to ask several question about the developments in the European
phytosociology and the legacy of the past, which was one of the main meeting subtopics. My respondent
Francesco Spada (Department of Environmental Biology, University “La Sapienza”, Roma, Italy) was one of
the two plenary speakers of the meeting, where his invited lecture was focused on “Anecdotal Geobotany
Revisited”.
Monika Janišová (MJ): At the beginning I would like
to link our interview to your lecture yesterday, which I
liked very much. You know what was the geobotany
before and what it is nowdays. So you can compare.
Francesco Spada (FS): I have my botanical
roots in those enthusiastic days of the early Italian
phytosociology when we were young autodidacts.
In my case, the discovery of the German language
was a very important tool for my introduction into
geobotany. I was 21 when, by chance, I became
Hausknecht (servant of the house) in a traditional
country house in the Italian side of the Tyrolian Alps
(Südtirol) where a huge German minority lives. I had
the privilege to spend there three splendid seasons
in haymaking. And there I became an amateur
ethnographer of rural life. But the most important gift
of this experience was the learning of the German
language. When I came back to Roma and to my
botanical studies, I could finally read for the first time
the book of Heinz Ellenberg “Vegetation Mitteleuropas
mit den Alpen“. It was the discovery of what I never
had been able to learn at the University before. And
thus I could be brought into the fascinating world
of the classic German phytogeographic literature.
At that time, when “geobotany” still was perceived
as a synonym of “phytogeography”, the approach
was basically and predominantly historical. Today
we call “historical biogeography” a distinct branch
of another (perhaps actualistic?) biogeography.
Indeed, phytogeography should deal with the
development of ranges not only according to ruling
environmental constraints but also during time.
However, it first happened later in the seventies
and eighties, that geobotany lost one of its basic
fundaments – the historical perspective – what we
today in this congress call the legacy of the past in
the assessment of the present day vegetation. In my
opinion, what happened is that geobotany turned its
back to the historical issues, i.e. the developmental
mechanisms of a local vegetation across time,
concurrently with the outburst of mensurative
methods in plant ecology. Before, historicism was
a widespread scientific mentality in comparative
sciences, it was basic in phytogeography. One
© R. Haveman
Francesco Spada during his lecture on “Anecdotal
Geobotany Revisited”. 25th EVS meeting in Rome
(April 2016).
example. Stands of Stipa capillata, Stipa pennata,
or whatever, in regions which today belong to forest
biomes, since they suggests refugial stands of
grasslands, they are the reminiscence of a more or
less remote past. This is what was basic for all those
classic students of phytogeography in earlier times.
And it is no longer so. Today, after years of splitting
syntaxonomy and site-ecology, fiercely insisting on
local factors and species number, we are going to
annihilate all historical knowledge, just focusing on
where plants grow, whether they are silicicolous
or calcicolous, etc. We can find a lot of immanent
outputs with the indicator values of the species,
but we forget that species might also be indicators
of other, earlier environmental scenarios, etc. Stipa
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 12 of 22
© M. Chytrý
Francesco Spada presenting the vegetation in the Nature Reserve Castelporziano.
suggests that a steppe biome was there many
thousand years ago, and therefore we should see
it as a relic stand of the macroclimate of that time.
This is the perspective of the “older” geobotany. The
Central and Eastern European countries, which have
a long tradition of recording the local vegetation, have
not yet denied the historical knowledge. Where the
historical knowledge has disappeared completely, is
Southern Europe. There is an enormous difference.
What we today mainly perform with South European
geobotany, is either a nomenclatural approach,
which emphasizes endemics, endemic behaviours,
endemic communities, or a neverending count of
attributes, etc. The style of description is too often
tautological or narratively empty: “This is a Quercus
ilex stand and this is Quercion ilicis ... and this is
important because it is a local Quercion ilicis with
this or this endemic feature ... “ (forgetting the
most important explanatory key: it is a subtropical
formation in a world of temperate ecosystems). This
is the basic frustration I feel, which I tried to explain
yesterday in my presentation.
MJ: Is the situation similar in Northern Europe?
FS: They have another approach to plant ecology.
The historical feeling and the historical perception
of the vegetation mosaic did not, in my opinion,
completely die out there. And it probably is the same
as in Central Europe. I remember that when we
were in the Pavlov Mountains during the excursion
within the IAVS Symposium in Brno, those who
guided us, apparently had in mind this perspective
since they spoke about “steppe species” showing
us relict grasslands. It means that they took an
earlier plant cover into consideration. So there
still is among these scientists the perception of an
historical development. In my opinion this approach
is today completely lacking in Southern Europe
where this perspective died completely out during
the last decades, also due to the lack of linguistic
knowledge and accessibility to the classics. But
forget the question of German, I only mean that it
is necessary to read other languages which were
classic at a certain time or to understand topics we
deal with. Today, English is classic and we study
English in order to understand a new type of scientific
thinking. Another day it could be Czech and we have
to read Czech. There cannot be any barrier due to
language among scientists. Think about what many
of us missed not studying Russian, for example in
the case of plant functional traits …!
During an IAVS excursion a few years ago (2011),
in the vicinity of Lyon we visited a splendid lake,
which is surrounded by huge stands of Buxus with a
canopy dominated by temperate trees, a temperate
forest with a subcanopy of lauryphills. And within
this forest there were many rocky outcrops, screes
and topographical discontinuities with isolated spots
of species belonging to Festuco-Brometea, among
them Artemisia alba. I had a very prominent numerical
ecologist at my side, we were walking together. I
said “Look, this is the heritage of another landscape,
a grassland, which has nearly disappeared ..., it
has been submerged by the modern, postglacial
temperate forest, which apparently incorporated an
earlier forest with tertiary relics, like Buxus in this
case.“ He was fascinated by that and at the very end
he said: “How can you prove it?“ I could not outline
any quantitative method, I was not prepared for such
a challenge. I went home with this struggle in my
mind. Indeed, the explanation is simply to be found
behind the name of each species, its “biography”. If
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 13 of 22
we go back to a plant name, we would be able to
deduce from it where it lives now, where it formerly
lived, where it lives as outpost of a larger range,
where the core of its range is, and therefore where
its zonal biome is today located, as well as which
macroclimate is controlling its present range.
prevent some probably not appropriate development
and application in the field.
Therefore, if this biome today is zonal under
given climatic condition, and today we find a little
fragment of it elsewhere, outside its zonal areas and
macroclimate, the easiest explanation is that this
fragment is testimonial of a former environment when
this biome was shifted in space. A consistent part of
the explanation is therefore to be found just behind
the name of a plant. I think that quantitative measures
are a splendid approach to the empiric explanation
of the world, but they cannot be something per se.
My feeling is that we have forgotten to follow the
significance of one splendid functional plant trait,
which simply is the species name and all properties
this name involves, what this name is hiding in form
of florogenesis and vegetation history... Chorology
is also a function as much as it is the relation with
species with similar phylogeny and traits.
FS: I love the broad-leaved evergreen forest of the
Mediterranean countries, which is one of the easiest
to study. It is very poor in species but very intriguing.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is still completely
misunderstood. Only one scientist in the eighties,
Specht, if I am not mistaken, observed that this is
not a kind of evergreen shrubland, rather something
different. It is a broad-leaved evergreen forest. And
according to this, you have the link between this
forest and its subtropical analogues, which are today
occurring, for instance, on the Canary Islands and
in East Asia. The legacy of the past ... Otherwise
we misinterpret it as it simply was an evergreen
xeromorphic shrubland, which only is a product of a
long-term human disturbance.
MJ: Two reasons came to mind, which could be
at least partly responsible for the disappearing
anecdotal approach: First, we might have less
fieldwork and field experience, and second, science
nowdays is pushed to be applied. So we make
classification and typology to be used in NATURA
2000. But what you are talking about is a completely
basic research, which builds our knowledge but
only hardly can be applied and as such it is not very
promoted nowdays.
FS: Yes, I agree, this is one of most explanatory
reasons of the most recent development in
geobotany. I am sure you are right. And another
possible reason of this change is that the former type
of thinking was not formalized from the beginning.
The phytosociological method was not written down
anywhere; it was only transmitted orally. And, if not
formalized, it decays. For example, Braun-Blanquet
wrote somewhere very early, that we should go for
well-developed aggregations, that we should focus
on late-successional communities in order to have
a kind of phytogeographically consistent descriptive
model. And this is exactly what we did not do. All the
enormous number of names in syntaxonomy we have
produced for what is a multitude of different stages
of degradation, development or reconstruction of
the broad-leaved evergreen forest, is due to a lack
of this praxis and principle, which Braun-Blanquet
recommended to follow. And no one did. He
explained it in his book in 1964, for the first time,
but it was too late. One or probably two generations
of phytosociologists were already operating around.
And we must also thank Mueller-Dombois and
Ellenberg, van der Maarel, Westhoff who put down a
substantial description of the methods in the eighties.
So the method was formalized too late in order to
MJ: I would like to ask you personally, which type of
vegetation did you study and which is your favourite
one?
I like this vegetation, I like it most.
MJ: The European Vegetation Survey working group
was established 25 years ago. I suppose that you
have been with the group from the very beginning.
Could you tell us something about its start and the
main ideas behind it?
FS: Yes, I was EVS participant from the beginning.
It started in Roma. Sandro Pignatti was one of the
founders, if not the founder. At the very beginning this
group gathered people from all European countries.
Sandro Pignatti started it in a very informal way using
some facilities available at the Botanical Garden
and he went on for 15 years without anything more.
And everything arose spontaneously. I remember
his famous “ordinated chaos”, since everything
appeared chaotic but everything ended well. It was
very romantic and impressively good, because a
real new spirit in coenology characterised this era.
It gathered people interested in many aspects of
geobotany, coming from different countries with
different experiences, especially the German and
Anglo-Saxon scientists, and soon after the EastEuropean scientific world which at that time very
seldom used to meet. So it really was a pioneer
initiative.
MJ: What were the aims of this initiative?
FS: It was focusing on a more consistent typology of
vegetation not only based on those rare species that
we seldom find in the plots, which by the way are the
ones which detect the individual associations. The
aim was to unify the methodology but also to provide
ideas for a more complex, a more realistic way to
build up a typology. It was the idea of providing a
satisfactory framework for the ongoing typification of
vegetation types, which eventually had its outcome
in the Palearctic classification. This, in order to
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 14 of 22
provide a description of vegetation types based
on a syntaxonomy, which should take into account
consistent biogeographical foundations since, at that
time, syntaxonomy had already become a thing per
se (not because of Latin!).
MJ: Twenty-five years is a long time. But it seems
that we are still not ready. Are you, personally, happy
with the developments and achievements of the
group?
FS: No, I am not happy. Methodology is becoming
more and more sophisticated. I do like many aspects
of the current methodologies, since they allow
to overcome the arbitrary procedure of deciding
what and how. But at the same time innovative
methodologies, which should instead develop
other aspects of geobotany, did not. For example
the nomenclatural divisionism of some branches
of syntaxonomy is still recruiting an enormous
number of students and scientists in an effort, which
does not provide any consistent progress. A new
syntaxonomy should be something, which gives us
insights in relationships, which focuses on a kind of
phylogeny of the communities, a kinship of another
type. Instead, what we do today, is to find more
and more local units, entities, endemic types (as
taxonomists do) or, alternatively, to model processes
that are beyond any understandable feedback on
the observed vegetation structure Therefore, we still
are where we were thirty years ago.
MJ: And what about our ecological understanding,
has it also not developed much?
FS: The ecological understanding, summarized
by the indicator value of species, for example, has
experienced an enormous progress, but not the
understanding of the role of individual species or
species guilds in the development of a particular
community. Many scientists are studying the structure
of communities mainly focusing on species number
or spatial and functional relations among individuals
and not on patterns of coexistence based on the
historical assessment of a species pool, which could
be an innovative contribution.
MJ: What are your wishes with respect to further
development of the EVS activities?
FS: I feel well from the point of view of the
methods and the scientific approach of EVS today.
I only complain that the debate is slightly low,
the discussion about these topics is nearly nonexisting. This scientific society is otherwise very
nice, very kind. There are no unpleasantly dominant
personalities ruling or giving the impression to
steer. It is extremely free, extremely positive and
collaborative. Therefore, if innovative things should
occur in geobotany this should happen in the EVS
framework. We should more actively stimulate the
scientific discourse. I experience a scientific period,
which I do like, but I am concerned by the fact that we
want to extract explanations on community patterns
stressing quantitative outputs shaped by disciplines
originated within other conceptual backgrounds. On
the contrary, we could find satisfactory evidence in
simple Aristotelic logic, based on: “What does the
name of a plant imply? Which kind of functional
properties does it imply?”, today neglected due of a
kind of “hubris” for sophisticated statistical methods,
which are splendid tools, but unfortunately still far
from the intrinsic structure of the geobotanical target.
This is my opinion.
© R. Haveman
Sandro Pignatti and Francesco Spada, the “fathers” of the European Vegetation Survey,
during the 25th EVS meeting in Rome (April 2016).
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 15 of 22
BES Guides to Better Science
In November 2015, a new guide for early career researchers was published by the British Ecological Society
(BES), which explains how to get published and includes advice on selecting the right journal, writing effectively
and dealing with decision letters. This is the third in a series of guides aimed at promoting research excellence
for those embarking on a career in research as well as providing a useful refresher for established researchers.
These guides offer insights from a wide range of ecologists and provide a valuable resource with plenty of
practical tips for students and their supervisors all around the world. Beautiful pictures accompanying the texts
make the reading even more pleasant. As these guides may be useful also for the members of the IAVS, we
introduce them briefly in our Bulletin. All the guides are freely available at: http://www.britishecologicalsociety.
org/publications/besguides/
The British Ecological Society, the oldest ecological society in the world, was established in 1913 and
nowadays it has approximately 5,000 members worldwide. The main aims of the Society are to generate,
communicate and promote ecological knowledge and solutions. The BES’s many activities include the
publication of a range of scientific literature, including five internationally renowned journals and education
work. The Society also runs supporting initiatives such as the gratis book scheme which aims to make ecology
publications available to those who couldn’t otherwise obtain them.
Monika Janišová
Editor of IAVS Bulletin
A Guide to Getting Published in Ecology
and Evolution
Publishing research results is a necessary part of
the scientific process and is crucial for an academic
career. This guide for early career researchers
explains how to get published, with advice on
selecting the right journal, writing effectively and
dealing with decision letters. Editors from across
the BES journals provide their own tips and lessons
learned from publishing in ecology and evolution.
What you can learn from the guide:
• How to choose the most appropriate journal
for your manuscript
• How one can balance the desired readership
with the best Impact Factor
• The difference between research ethics and
publication ethics
• How to formulate a successful title of your
paper and why it is important
• How to communicate effectively in scientific
writing
• Which points should be included in a cover
letter
• How to cope with rejection of your paper
“In STEM (science, technology, engineering and
mathematics) disciplines, the main avenue for
publishing research results is the journal article.”
“Sharing your research results on social media and
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 16 of 22
blogs as well as writing a short summary can all help
to reach your desired readership. These alternative
ways to disseminate your research can be highly
effective, wherever your research is published.”
“Start talking about authorship and author order
for your paper with collaborators at an early stage
– before submitting and ideally before writing the
paper.”
“You should be single-minded about your message.
Think like a reader and keep it simple. Every extra
word you write is another word for a reviewer to
disagree with.”
“Many journals now mandate that data used in
papers to support results must be archived in an
appropriate public repository.”
“Once you have finished writing, leave your paper
alone for a week so you come back to it with fresh
eyes.”
A Guide to Data Management in Ecology
and Evolution
Good data management is fundamental to research
excellence. It produces high-quality research data
that are accessible to others and usable in the future.
This guide for early career researchers explains what
data and data management are, and provides advice
and examples of best practices in data management,
including case studies from researchers currently
working in ecology and evolution.
What you can learn from the guide:
• What is the difference between observational
and experimental data
• What are the potential benefits of good data
management
• How to create a data management plan
• What key points you should consider during
data collection
• Why digitizing and organizing the data
immediately after field collection is important
• How to structure and organise the data in
order to find them in the future
• What is the best data backup strategy
• What is the best practice for electronic
storage of data
• Why data sharing is important
• What are the advantages of sharing data
through data repositories
“Talk to your supervisor, colleagues and collaborators.
Discuss any challenges they have already faced in
their experience – learn from their mistakes.”
“Ask yourself, ‘Would a colleague be able to take
over my project tomorrow if I disappeared, or make
sense of the data without talking to me?’ If you can
answer with yes, then you are managing your data
well.”
“Data management should be planned and
implemented with the purpose of the research project
in mind. Knowing how your data will be used in the
end will help in planning the best ways to manage
data at each stage of the lifecycle.”
A Guide to Peer Review in Ecology and Evolution
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more
people of similar competence to the producers of the
work (peers). Peer review methods are employed to
maintain standards of quality, improve performance,
and provide credibility. Reviewing for scientific
journals is a skill, one that is learned through
practice and experience. This guide for early career
researchers provides a succinct overview of the
many aspects of peer review, from hands-on practical
advice about the actual process to explaining the
less tangible aspects, such as reviewer ethics.
What you can learn from the guide:
• What is a peer review and why is it important
• What is the difference between single-blind
and double-blind peer reviews
• What are the tasks of the reviewers,
associate editors and editors
• What kind of review is most useful for the
authors
• What to do when publishing ethics have been
violated in the manuscript you are reviewing
• How supplementary files are treated in the
peer review process
• How reviewing for an open access journal
differs from reviewing for a subscription
journal
• How much time should be spent on a review
“As a human endeavour peer review does have
its weaknesses; however, no other system has
yet been devised that can deliver the widespread
improvements to the body of scientific literature in a
better way.”
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 17 of 22
News from IAVS Working Groups
IAVS Vegetation Classification Working Group
Within the activities of the International Association
for Vegetation Science (IAVS), J. Loidi, R.K. Peet, L.
Mucina, J.-P. Theurillat, P. Krestov, M. Chytrý and M.
De Cáceres were members of a Special Committee
devoted to vegetation classification. Their interest
was motivated by the need both to increase the
usefulness of vegetation typologies and to enhance
the acceptance of their scientific underpinnings by
policy makers. Coordinated discussions, started by
the Special Committee, among a group 32 experts
led to the agreement on a set of concepts and
terminology to describe and compare the structure
and methods of plot-based vegetation classifications
(De Cáceres et al. 2015). Following the publication
of this framework, around 60 IAVS members met
in June 2015 during the IAVS Symposium in Brno.
Participants at this meeting decided to stimulate the
constitution of an official working group within IAVS,
including the approval of Bylaws and creation of a
Steering Committee. Approved in January 2016, the
Vegetation Classification Working Group (VCWG)
has grown to 174 members from 41 countries of six
continents.
The general scope of the VCWG includes vegetation
classification at any spatial or organizational
scale, particularly the underlying methodologies
and standards, ultimately allowing greater
understanding and crosswalks among national
classification systems. To that end, the VCWG has
developed subgroups focusing on specific activities
and maintains a website “The IAVS Vegetation
Classification Methods Website” (https://sites.google.
com/site/vegclassmethods/home) as the official
outlet of VCWG activities, including a discussion
forum for members and the dissemination of agreed
standards. In addition, the website aims to facilitate
access to bibliographic and technical resources for
vegetation classification (data, programs, tutorials,
etc.). The website includes the Bylaws, geographical
representation of current membership, and contact
information to become involved (by contacting the
working group Secretary John Hunter [jhunter8@
bigpond.com]). Membership is free and does not
require membership in IAVS.
The focus of the Steering Committee at present is a
special issue in Phytocoenologia, “Global overview
of plot-based vegetation classification systems.” The
purpose of this Special Issue is to provide a common
framework describing all approaches of vegetation
classification used throughout the world and thus
allowing for a thorough comparison among those
approaches. Our goal is to publish the special issue
in 2017. The Steering Committee will also present
an introduction to the new Working Group (a poster)
and have a business meeting at the IAVS conference
in Brazil. Everyone is welcome at the meeting and to
bring their questions and ideas for activities.
Steering Committee:
Scott B. Franklin (Chair),
John T. Hunter (Secretary), Miquel De Cáceres,
Jürgen Dengler, Flavia Landucci, and Pavel Krestov
© J. Dengler
Miquel De Cáceres explains the various approaches to vegetation classification during the
IAVS Symposium in Brno, 2015
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 18 of 22
Photo Memories
© J. Dengler
During the Postsymposium Excursion to Slovakia, the participants could experience an open air concert on
the top of the Mt Veľký Kriváň (1709 m a.s.l.), the highest peak in the Malá Fatra Mts. Marek Gonda, the
producer of traditional music instruments, climbed to the top with us and played several traditional songs
on his hand-made whistle (above). Mountain swards dominated by Avenella flexuosa require a detailed
observation, which was made by Itziar, Hermann and Susan (below).
© J. Dengler
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 19 of 22
© A. Fidelis
Either hot drought or cold rain accompanied the participants of the Postsymposium Excursions in Mexico and Australia.
The first is much more convenient for taking pictures of exotic plants such as Fouquieria splendens (above). During the
second, survival is most important and the vegetation is sometimes helpful providing a shelter (below).
© A. Fidelis
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 20 of 22
© M. Jiroušek
T-shirts with various vegetation patterns were sold well during the 58th Annual IAVS Symposium in Brno,
Czech Republic, in 2015 (above). In 2016, people demonstrate their affiliation to vegetation science during
the European Vegetation Survey (EVS) 25th Meeting in Rome, Italy (below).
© M. Janišová
© M. Janišová
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Page 21 of 22
© A. Fidelis
Campos rupestres vegetation.
Contact IAVS
Bulletin Article Submission
International Association for Vegetation Science
Business Office
9650 Rockvill Pike
Bethesda, MD 20814, USA
Have an idea for an IAVS Bulletin article? Or, would
like your picture featured in the next issue? Please
email the Editor at: monika.janisova@gmail.com.
www.iavs.org
admin@iavs.org
Credits
Monika Janišová Editor of IAVS Bulletin
Bulletin 2016/2
www.iavs.org
Stefan Bradham
Layout & Design
Page 22 of 22