2016 v62 No 2 Summer

Plant Science Bulletin archive

View on Issuu.com

View PDF

Issue: 2016 v62 No 2 Summer

IN THIS ISSUE...

PLANTS Grant Recipients and Mentors Gather at Botany 2015!

SUMMER 2016 VOLUME 62 NUMBER 2

PLANT SCIENCE

BULLETIN

A PUBLICATION OF THE BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

BSA members attend

Congressional Visits

Day.... p. 61

BSA Member Erika Edwards

Receives Presidential Early

Career Award... p. 101

“Plants Move, Plants Matter” at the USA Science and Engineering Festival

Shakespeare, Plant Blindness,
and Electronic Media...p. 85

Summer 2016 Volume 62 Number 2

PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN

Editorial Committee

Volume 62

Kathryn LeCroy

(2018)

Environmental Sciences

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA 22904

kal8d@virginia.edu

L.K. Tuominen

(2016)

Department of Natural Science

Metropolitan State University

St. Paul, MN 55106

Lindsey.Tuominen@metrostate.edu

Daniel K. Gladish

(2017)

Department of Biology &

The Conservatory

Miami University

Hamilton, OH 45011

gladisdk@muohio.edu

Melanie Link-Perez

(2019)

Department of Botany

& Plant Pathology

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331

linkperm@oregonstate.edu

From the Editor

Greetings!

In this issue, we celebrate many of the Society’s award

winners, including the 2016 Distinguished Fellows

and this year’s recipient of the Emerging Leader Award

(p. 62). Many of our student award winners are list-

ed in this issue, as well (p. 65). Congratulations to all!

Look for more award winners in the Fall issue.

I want to take a moment to thank the many people

who have contributed book reviews to Plant Science

Bulletin. These contributors volunteer their time and

effort to read and review the newest books in plant

science and we could not offer this valuable resource

without their commitment. I have added many a book

to my own reading list after reading a review. If you

would like to write a book review for PSB, the current

list of available books can always be found at http://

botany.org/home/publications/plant-science-bul-

letin.html.

PSB has had multiple requests from readers looking

for advice in choosing textbooks that are successful in

incorporating plant biology into more general topics.

This spring, my own university considered switching

General Biology textbooks, which most of you know, is

typically a laborious and contentious process. I would

like to call on you, the readers of Plant Science Bulletin,

to address the need for reviews of textbooks, includ-

ing General Biology textbooks, from the perspective

of botanists.

Textbooks rarely make our list of books available for

review and we generally don’t have copies available.

However, if you currently use a textbook with which

you are particularly happy (or unhappy), PSB would

welcome your review of that text. If you are interested

in contributing, please contact me at psb@botany.org.

I hope that many of you are planning to make the trip

to Savannah for Botany 2016!

If you have ideas or comments about Plant Science

Bulletin, please find me or attend “Are You Being

Served,” a discussion with the editors of BSA publica-

tions, on Wednesday, August 3, at 1:30 p.m. in Room

106 of the Convention Center.

See you in Savannah!

Shannon Fehlberg

(2020)

Research and Conservation

Desert Botanical Garden

Phoenix, AZ 85008

sfehlberg@dbg.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOCIETY NEWS

Summer 2016 Public Policy Note... ......................................................................................................58

Dunn Receives First Annual Botany Advocacy Leadership Award. ..................................61

2016 Congressional District Visits......................................................... .............................................61

Botanical Society of America’s Award Winners.................... .......................................................62

SPECIAL FEATURES

Eat Your Weeds: Edible and Wild Plants in Urban

Environmental Education and Outreach........................................................................................ 72

Shakespeare, Plant Blindness, and Electronic Media ............... .............................................85

SCIENCE EDUCATION

USA Science and Engineering Festival: “Plants Move, Plants Matter”

Booth Draws Thousands of Visitors. .............................................................................................94

Botany Booth in a Box Outreach Competition.. ...........................................................................95

PlantingScience Seeking 100 New Mentors for Fall 2016 as Improved

Website Launched.... ................................................................................................................................95

Digging Deeper Together: Collaborative Teacher/Scientist Professional

Development Launches this Summer... .........................................................................................96

STUDENT SECTION

Getting the Most out of BOTANY 2016: A Guide for Students ...........................................97

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Linnean Society of London Meeting at the Arnold Arboretum . ........................................100

BSA Member Erika Edwards Receives Presidential Early Career Award .................. 100

Marshall Sundberg Named 2016 Roe R. Cross Distinguished Professor .................. 101

BOOK REVIEWS

Economic........................................................................................................................... .............................. 104

Historical..... ..................................................................................................................................................... 109

Systematics ................................................................................................................................................... 110

www.botanyconference.org

conference you don’t want to miss!

Summer 2016 Public Policy Note

By Marian Chau (Lyon Arboretum

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa) and

Morgan Gostel (Smithsonian Institution),

Public Policy Committee Co-Chairs

SOCIETY NEWS

This year has kicked off with much excitement

for the BSA Public Policy Committee; 2016

marks the fifth year of BSA participation in

the annual Biological and Ecological Sciences

Coalition (BESC) Congressional Visits Day.

Two BSA members participated in the event,

held on April 27 and 28: Dr. Krissa Skogen,

BSA Public Policy Award winner, and Dr.

Morgan Gostel, BSA Public Policy Committee

co-chair.

Read about Dr. Skogen’s experience, below

and stay tuned for next year’s Public Policy

Award application, which can be found at

http://botany.org/home/awards/awards-

for-early-career-scientists/publicpolicyaward.

html in November 2016.

Dr. Skogen’s Experience

I was honored to have been selected for the

BSA Public Policy Award and to participate

in the Biological and Ecological Sciences

Coalition Congressional Visits Day. I’ve been

interested in the interface between public

policy and science for a while and saw this

event as a unique opportunity both to learn

from scientists who have devoted part of their

careers to public policy and to engage with

policy makers myself.

The first morning was held at the office of

the Ecological Society of America, where a

panel of scientists who have transitioned their

careers from science to public policy shared

their personal stories and provided advice.

The speakers included Rich Pouyat (Senior

Policy Analyst, Climate Resilience and Land

Use, Office of Science and Technology Policy),

Nadine Lymn (Communications Director,

National Science Board Office, National

Science Foundation), Brittany Marsden

(Analyst in NOAA OAR’s Formulation and

Congressional Analysis Division), and Alan

Thornhill (Director Office of Science Quality

and Integrity, U.S. Geological Survey). I

found this session particularly valuable, as the

speakers highlighted many of the important

aspects of being a liaison between science

and policy making. Their advice included

many obvious but often overlooked factors

important for being effective in such a role, such

as recognizing that science is only one of the

many considerations taken into account when

policy decisions are made. They emphasized

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Congressional Visits Day, Midwest team inside

the Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,

D.C. Left to right, BSA Public Policy Commit-

tee Co-Chair, Morgan Gostel; BSA Public Pol-

icy Award winner, Krissa Skogen; and fellow

team member, Nina Richtman.

the fact that many of the skills that one gains

as a result of becoming a scientist are essential

to succeeding as a liaison, including the ability

to think critically, write clearly, listen, step

outside of your comfort zone, and—one of my

favorites—never let a good crisis go to waste.

The afternoon’s events were held at the AIBS

offices and focused on preparing participants

for congressional meetings, including

information on federal trends in science

funding, tips for successful meetings with

policymakers, and an overview of the legislative

process. Kei Koizumi (Assistant Director for

Federal Research and Development, White

House Office of Science and Technology

Policy) provided insight on federal spending

on science and how it impacts scientists.

Julie Palakovich Carr (AIBS) then provided

a number of important talking points for our

meetings with Congress members, including

the fact that 68% of federal funding for non-

medical research comes from NSF as well

as state-specific funding and benefits. The

afternoon ended with an orientation for

congressional meetings provided by Alison

Mize and Terence Houston (ESA) and

mock Capitol Hill meetings. With the goal

of asking for support for funding NSF at $8

billion in fiscal year 2017, my team members

and I honed our message. As scientists, we

represented industry (Nina Richtman –

DuPont Pioneer, Iowa), museum (Morgan

Gostel – Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

DC), and non-profit (myself – Chicago

Botanic Garden, Illinois) and provided a great

overview of the benefits of science funding

at numerous levels: academic, educational,

and industry. I left the AIBS office energized,

excited, and well-prepared for our meetings

the following day.

The second day I joined Morgan Gostel and

Nina Richtman on the Hill. We met with

Representative David Young (IA – R) and

staffers from the offices of Senator Dick

Durban (IL - D), Senator Mark Kirk (IL - R),

and Representative Bob Dold (IL - R), Senator

Joni Ernst (IA – R), Senator Chuck Grassley

(IA – R), and Representative Eleanor Holmes

Norton (Washington, DC – D). During our

meetings, Nina, Morgan and I each took the

lead for our home state/district. I felt lucky

to share my personal story of the impact that

NSF funding has had on my career at pivotal

times, including as a graduate student and

now as an early-career scientist with post-

docs and students of my own. I emphasized

the dual role of NSF funding, for both basic

research and education, and the value of

engaging students at various levels, as the

critical thinking, writing, and analytic skills

that one learns while pursuing scientific

endeavors are essential for nearly every

profession. I was also proud to represent

my home institution, the Chicago Botanic

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Society News

Science is about telling

stories, sharing our

passions, and getting

others excited about

our work. Engaging a

new audience—policy

makers—is essential to

the future of science...

Garden, and the great work being conducted

by my colleagues and the students in our Plant

Biology and Conservation graduate program,

much of which has been funded by NSF. Nina

and Morgan’s personal stories were a great

complement to mine and provided further

context for the importance of federal funding

for NSF to scientists in academic institutions

and industry.

Prior to my trip, I was nervous about how my

meetings would unfold and whether I was

sufficiently prepared. Thanks to the fantastic

coordination by AIBS prior to our meetings,

in the end, I was well-prepared and had a

great time—it was easy, fun, and exciting. At

the end of my visit, three things were striking

to me:

• First, I was shocked by how easy it was to ask for $8

billion, and that all Congress members and staffers are

expecting you to ask them for something when you

meet with them.

• Second, I was encouraged by the fact that the offices

we met with were receptive to our message; people are

interested in science and they like to hear our stories

and learn about the impact we are having.

• Third, I was surprised by how fun it was to share my

passion for science and education with people in a po-

sition to effect change and to share my personal story,

as well as those of students and colleagues with whom

I’ve worked, of how science funding, and NSF funding

in particular, has changed our career trajectories and

lives.

Science is about telling stories, sharing our

passions, and getting others excited about

our work. We are accustomed to engaging

our students and colleagues. Engaging a

new audience—policy makers—is essential

to the future of science. However, many

scientists and faculty don’t know how to

become engaged and many don’t know just

how important—and easy—it is to meet

with their representatives in Congress and

voice their concerns. While participating

in the Congressional Visits Day may be of

particular interest to someone considering

a career change from a focus on science to

a career at the science-policy interface, I’d

argue that meeting with one’s representatives

is an extremely valuable experience for any

scientist, and truly is part of the job of being

a scientist.

Traveling to Washington DC isn’t a

requirement for meeting with Congress

members; many host district visit days when

they are home on recess or may tour your

home institution. Many colleges, universities,

and non-profits have lobbyists who represent

them on the Hill. Find out if you have a

lobbyist, connect with them and stay up to date

on important science-related policy matters.

Call the offices of your representatives when

an important vote is approaching and share

your concerns—a simple sentence or two

stating your request takes only a few minutes

but very few citizens, and scientists, pick up

the phone. I’m grateful for the opportunity to

participate in the Congressional Visits Day

and I thank BSA for providing support and

encourage others to participate in future years.

I left DC inspired and excited about my role

in communicating the importance of funding

basic science and education and committed

to remaining engaged in public policy. the

importance of funding basic science and

education and committed to remaining

engaged in public policy.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

FROM THE

PSB

ARCHIVES

60 years ago: Guest Editor George S. Avery,

Jr. introduces a special PSB issue on teach-

ing botany: “One hundred years ago botany

courses, natural history, or whatever, were

chiefly of taxonomic content. A large propor-

tion of the population lived in what we now

call “the country.” In that different America it

was a daily experience for people to see and

know wild plants. Today by farthe most of us

live in cities or suburbs, and the old approach

has become inadequate.”. . .

“In the America of today and the growing

ever- changing America of the future, botany

faces a challenge. Whether we can meet it, or

are to continue along the old traditional paths

that may lead to extinction-- is the question.

The articles in this issue suggest that many

teachers are thinking about ways of meeting

the challenge. But words alone are not enough,

no matter how dynamic and thought-provok-

ing they may be. We need a program that will

make general botany courses a more central

and vital part of the undergraduate curricu-

lum.” (PSB 2(3): 2)

50 years ago: “A request that the Botanical So-

ciety of America Archives be deposited in the

History of Science Collection at The Universi-

ty of Texas was presented at the Council Meet-

ing on August 23, 1964. This request received

the approval of the Council. Since receiving

these Archives, our staff has microfilmed the

Society records through 1949. Recently Dr.

Richard C. Starr, Secretary, Botanical Society

of America, has deposited in the Archives the

Society’s Minutes for 1950 through 1954.

In addition to these official records, the Col-

lection has been receiving manuscripts,

photographs and publications related to the

Botanical Society of America and also to out-

standing U.S. botanists.” (PSB 12(2): 8)

Society News

Dunn Receives First Annual

Botany Advocacy

Leadership Award

The BSA Public Policy Committee and

the ASPT Environment and Public Policy

Committee have selected an awardee for

the first annual jointly sponsored Botany

Advocacy Leadership Grant. The award

goes to Dr. Michael Dunn on behalf of the

Southwest Chapter of the Oklahoma Native

Plant Society for a seminar and lecture

series that will contribute to public policy

by supporting outreach and education on

native plant conservation and awareness.

Congratulations, Michael!

The Botanical Advocacy Leadership Grant is

an annual award, so we encourage members

to apply next year. You can find more

information on the grant at botany.org/

file.php?file=SiteAssets/awards/BSA_BAL_

Call.pdf. Stay tuned in January 2017 for an

update on Michael Dunn’s seminar series, and

for the 2017 call for applications.

2016 Congressional

District Visits

The Botanical Society of America is helping

to sponsor the 2016 Congressional District

Visits event. Help showcase your science

to your elected lawmakers by meeting with

them locally in your district! Read a summary

about the 2015 CDV event at

https://www.

aibs.org/public-policy/news/lawmakers_

tour_research_facilities.html

. Register for this

event by July 17, 2016 at https://www.aibs.org/

public-policy/congressional_district_visits.

html.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Botanical Society of America’s

Award Winners

2016 Distinguished Fellow

Award Winners

The Botanical Society of America Distinguished

Fellow Award (formerly known as the Merit

Award) is the highest honor our Society bestows.

Each year, the Merit Award Committee solicits

nominations, evaluates candidates, and selects

those to receive an award. Awardees are chosen

based on their outstanding contributions to the

mission of our scientific Society. The committee

identifies recipients who have demonstrated

excellence in basic research, education, and

public policy, or who have provided exceptional

service to the professional botanical community,

or who may have made contributions to a

combination of these categories.

Professor Joseph Armstrong

Joseph Armstrong is a highly praised teacher/

educator, a public advocate for botany

andevolution, and an active researcher of

quitevaried interests. His numerous awards

include Outstanding Teacher at Illinois

State University and the BSA’s Charles E.

Bessey award. Well before STEM education

came into vogue, he actively challenged and

involved students in courses and educational

experiences, as reflected in his books and

numerous writings. His former students are

effusive in their high regard for his teaching

and influences on their professional lives;

as one of them stated, “he’s all about all the

students.” He has been equally vigorous in his

public outreach for botany and evolution, and

he has been a major contributor to and tireless

worker for the BSA. Professor Armstrong’s

research has dealt with the whole plant, from

root apical meristems through the wood of

stems to flowers; his substantial published

research articles have included studies on

anatomy, morphology, floral development,

pollination biology, genetics, systematics, and

ecology. As one of his supporters noted, his

“studies on the role of floral morphology for

the distinction of families in the premolecular

era are especially noteworthy.” Many have

noted that he is a student of the whole plant and

its place in ecosystems, as well as a proponent

of botany and evolution through teaching and

public outreach—Professor Armstrong is “a

man of many hats.”

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Professor Jacob Weiner

Weiner has made important contributions

in several areas of ecology, including

size variation within plant populations,

plant competition at the individual and

population levels, plant growth and resource

allocation, and the application of ecological

and evolutionary knowledge to agricultural

production systems. He is associated with a

specific approach to plant ecology, which is

analytic, mechanistic, and starts with simple

models that produce testable hypotheses.

Several of his papers are considered “classics”

and are used in plant ecology courses around

the world because they are easy to read and

have a clear logic. He is known for finding

non-conventional angles and solutions to

difficult problems, and he has often succeeded

in discovering simplicity in the seemingly

overwhelming complexity of plant behavior.

For example, he showed that patterns of

allocation in plants that had been interpreted

as “flexible reproductive strategies” could be

better and more simply explained in terms

of fixed allometric trajectories. In the middle

of his career, he made a notable shift in focus

and location. After serving on the faculty at

Swarthmore College for 18 years, where he

taught courses in botany and ecology and

did research on basic mechanisms of plant

competition and allocation, he left for the

Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University

(now part of the University of Copenhagen) in

Denmark in 1996 and began applying theories

from plant ecology to the improvement

of agriculture. Using ideas from plant

population biology and testing the resulting

hypotheses, he has demonstrated that the

potential for weed suppression by cereal crops

is much greater than appreciated, and that this

potential can be realized through increased

crop density and spatial uniformity. He is

currently attempting to apply evolutionary

theory to agriculture and plant breeding.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Dr. Michael Barker Receives

Emerging Leader Award

Dr. Michael Barker is an Assistant Professor in

the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary

Biology at the University of Arizona. Barker

received his undergraduate degree at Denison

University, earned a Master’s degree at Miami

University, and then obtained a PhD in 2009 at

Indiana University with Drs. Loren Rieseberg

and Gerald Gastony. After his NSERC-BRITE

Postdoctoral Fellowship at University of

British Columbia with Dr. Sally Otto, he took

his current position in 2011. Over that time,

Barker has proven to be a prolific researcher,

with more than 50 peer-reviewed publications.

As an emerging leader, Barker enjoys a

national and international reputation for

being an expert at using bioinformatics and

computational biology to confront enduring

evolutionary questions in botany. Barker

has successfully focused on developing

algorithms for studying ancient and recent

polyploidy (whole genome duplications).

Taxonomically, he has worked primarily on

ferns and members of the sunflower family;

however, his novel methods in computational

biology have led him to work on many plant

groups as now on insects and other lineages

of life. His expertise also spans time from

macroevolution to microevolution—from

the diversification of major lineages to recent

hybridization and plant domestication.

Barker has an impressive record of leadership

not only in research, but also his dedication

to teaching, outreach, and service. Whether

coordinating computational workshops

or directing campus-wide bioinformatics

efforts, Barker has demonstrated a willingness

to step up and assume leadership roles in

professional societies and at the University of

Arizona. He has organized several symposia

and colloquia, including a BSA symposium

and special issue of the American Journal of

Botany (July 2016) on the theme of polyploidy

and genome evolution. Given his record of

accomplishment and contributions to Botany,

Dr. Michael Barker is an exemplary recipient

of the BSA Emerging Leader Award.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

BSA Public Policy Award

The Public Policy Award was established in 2012 to support the development of tomorrow’s leaders

and a better understanding of this critical area. The 2016 recipient is:

Krissa Skogen, Ph.D., Conservation Scientist, Conservation and Land Management Internship

Program Manager, Chicago Botanic Garden and Adjunct Professor – Northwestern University

The J. S. Karling Graduate Student Research Award

Jonathan P. Spoelhof, University of Florida (Advisor: Douglas Soltis), for the proposal:

Connecting Adaptation and Expression in Neopolyploid Arabidopsis thaliana

The BSA Graduate Student Research Awards

Ana María Bedoya, University of Washington, Seattle (Advisor: Richard Olmstead), for the

proposal: Andean uplift and the transformation of aquatic ecosystems: Impacts on the evolutionary

patterns in aquatic plants of northern South America

Alexander C. Bippus, Humboldt State University (Advisor: Alexandru M.F. Tomescu), for the

proposal: Exploring the phylogeny of basal Tracheophytes: The early Devonian radiation

Megan Bontrager, University of British Columbia (Advisor: Amy Angert), for the proposal: The

roles of geography and environment in determining population genetic structure and performance

at the northern range edge of Clarkia pulchella

Matthew Chmielewski, Portland State University (Advisor: Sarah Eppley), for the proposal:

Does local dispersal of bryophytes by birds matter? Testing temporal shifts in bryophyte movement

via birds and wind in a Pacific Northwest forest

Taylor Crow, University of Wyoming (Advisor: Kristina Hufford), for the proposal: Alternative

methods for delineating seed transfer zones

Timea Deakova, Portland State University (Advisor: Sarah Eppley), for the proposal: A novel

finding: Exploring the role of isoprene emission from germinating Polytrichum juniperinum moss spores

Evan Eifler, University of Wisconsin – Madison (Advisor: Tom Givnish), for the proposal: Spatial

and temporal patterns of diversification in Geissorhiza (Iridaceae): Phylogeny, biogeography, and

vulnerability in the Cape Floristic Province

Jonathan A. Flickinger, Florida International University (Advisor: Javier Francisco-Ortega),

for the proposal: Systematics of the Lathberry Clade of Eugenia L. (Myrtaceae) in the Caribbean

Islands

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Luiz Henrique Martins Fonseca, Universidade de São Paulo (Advisor: Lúcia G. Lohmann),

for the proposal: Systematics, phylogeny and diversification of Adenocalymma (Bignonieae,

Bignoniaceae)

Diana Gamba, University of Missouri – St. Louis (Advisor: Nathan Muchhala), for the proposal:

Is speciation faster in the tropics? Effects of seasonality and mutualists on angiosperm genetic

structure

Ian Gilman, University of Idaho (Advisor: David Tank), for the proposal: Phylogeography of

Cordylanthus and Pseudocordylanthus: A framework for assessing the role of niche evolution and

conservatism in the process of speciation

Nathan Paul Hartley, Duke University (Advisor: Paul Manos), for the proposal: Diversification

of a neotropical litter-trapping epiphyte clade (Anthurium section Pachyneurium): A preliminary

assessment of phylogenetic niche conservatism

Caitlin Maraist, Portland State University (Advisor: Sarah Eppley), for the proposal: Effects of

phyllospheric fungi on sexual effort and chemical cues in the dioecious moss, Ceratodon purpureus

F. Nicolas Medina, Claremont Graduate University, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (Advisor:

J. Travis Columbus), for the proposal: Phylogenetic insights into the New World strangler figs

(Ficus subgen. Urostigma sect. Americana): Testing for hybridization and introgression

Chelsea Miller, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (Advisor: Charles Kwit), for the proposal:

Does the presence of entomopathogenic fungi on myrmecochorous seeds affect seed-handling and

dispersal behaviors in Aphaenogaster ants?

Andre A. Naranjo, University of Florida (Advisor: Pamela Soltis), for the proposal: The

comparative phylogeography of Eastern North American wetland forest species

Chathurani Ranathunge, Mississippi State University (Advisor: Mark E. Welch), for the

proposal: Elucidating the adaptive role of microsatellites in natural populations of Helianthus

annuus (Asteraceae)

María Adolfina Savoretti, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and Instituto de Botánica

Darwinion (Advisor: Alexandru M.F. Tomescu), for the proposal: Systematic affinities of Early

Cretaceous mosses of western North America – an inquiry into the deep history of bryophytes

Katelin D. Stanley, Florida State University (Advisor: Austin R. Mast), for the proposal: A

comparative anchor for anchored phylogenomics: Systematic discovery of Elephantopodinae

(Asteraceae) from within the “Evil Tribe”

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Vernon I. Cheadle Student Travel Awards

(BSA in association with the Developmental and Structural Section)

This award was named in honor of the memory and work of Dr. Vernon I. Cheadle.

Christopher Nelson, Florida Museum of Natural History (Advisor, Dr. Nathan A. Jud), for the

Botany 2016 presentation: “A new species of Mammea (Calophyllaceae) from the lower Miocene

of Panama” Co-author: Nathan A. Jud

Adam Ramsey, University of Memphis (Advisor, Dr. Jennifer R. Mandel), for the Botany 2016

presentation: “Patterns of cyto-nuclear disequilibrium and the influence of heteroplasmy in wild

carrot, Daucus carota (Apiaceae)” Co-author: Jennifer R. Mandel

Amanda Salvi, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Advisor, Dr. Selena Y. Smith), for the

Botany 2016 presentation: “Effect of canopy shading on morphology, anatomy, and self-shading

in spiral gingers (Costus)” Co-author: Selena Y. Smith

Rachel Schwallier, Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Advisor, Dr. Barbara Gravendeel), for the

Botany 2016 presentation: “Evolution of wood anatomical characters in Nepenthes and close

relatives in Caryophyllales” Co-authors: Barbara Gravendeel, Hugo de Boer, Bertie Joan van

Heuven, Anton Sieder, Sukaibin Sumail, Rogier van Vugt, Stephan Nylinder, and Frederic Lens

The BSA Undergraduate Student Research Awards

The BSA Undergraduate Student Research Awards support undergraduate student research and

are made on the basis of research proposals and letters of recommendation. The 2016 award

recipients are:

Christie Dang, Creighton University (Advisor, Dr. Mackenzie Taylor), Post-pollination

development in the hydrophilous species Stuckenia pectinata (Potamogetonaceae)

Anna Hakkenberg, University of Richmond (Advisor, Dr. Carrie Wu), Genetic patterns of

introduction during the emerging invasion of wavyleaf basketgrass (Oplismenus undulatifolius)

into U.S. Mid-Atlantic forest understories

María del Pilar Herrera, San Marcos University (Advisor, Dr. Julien Bachelier), Comparative

development of extremely dimorphic male and female reproductive structures in Orthopterygium

huaucui, a very rare and highly endemic dioecious genus of Anacardiaceae

Elizabeth Leo, Towson University (Advisor, Dr. Laura Gough), Bioavailability and trophic

transfer of heavy metal soil contaminants in urban gardens in Baltimore, MD.

Nathan Luftman, Bucknell University (Advisors, Drs. Christopher T. Martine and Jason

Cantley), Chenopodium “Moloka’i” (Amaranthaceae): A potential new species on the Hawaiian Island Moloka’i

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Kendall Major, University of Memphis (Advisor, Dr. Jennifer Mandel), Genetic diversity and

population structure in the clonal plant Trillium recurvatum

Yu-Ling Shih, Da-Yeh University (Advisors, Dr. Pei-Luen Lu), Botanical biodiversity of Long

Lellang, Sarawak, Malaysia

Austin Szubryt, Southern Illinois University – Carbondale (Advisor, Dr. Kurt Neubig), The

golden rule for goldentops: Using phylogenetics to classify Euthamia (Asteraceae)

The BSA Young Botanist Awards

The purpose of these awards is to offer individual recognition to outstanding graduating seniors

in the plant sciences and to encourage their participation in the Botanical Society of America.

The 2016 “Certificate of Special Achievement” award recipients are:

Kevin Bird, University of Missouri (Advisor: Dr. J. Chris Pires)

Katie Brown, University of Guelph (Advisor: Dr. Christina (Chris) Caruso)

Carmela Buono, Rutgers University (Advisor: Dr. Myla F.J. Aronson)

Alice Butler, Bucknell University (Advisor: Dr. Chris Martine)

Wade Dismukes, University of Missouri (Advisor: Dr. J. Chris Pires)

Ashley Donnel, Eastern Illinois University (Advisor: Dr. Scott J. Meiners)

Benjamin Durrington, Hillsdale College (Advisor: Dr. Ranessa Cooper)

Zoe Feder, Oberlin College (Advisor: Dr. Michael J. Moore)

Meghan Garanich, Bucknell University (Advisor: Dr. Chris Martine)

Cazandra Koonce, St. Louis Community College (Advisor: Dr. Scott D. Gevaert)

Erin Johnson, Oberlin College (Advisor: Dr. Michael J. Moore)

Evan Kilburn, Auburn University (Advisor: Dr. Robert S. Boyd)

Ian Medeiros, College of the Atlantic (Advisor: Dr. Nishanta “Nishi” Rajakaruna)

Jacob Mreen, St. Louis Community College (Advisor: Dr. Scott D. Gevaert)

Julia Olivieri, Oberlin College (Advisor: Dr. Michael Moore)

Becca Otoole, University of Florida (Advisor: Dr. Douglas Soltis)

Madeline McClelland, Willamette University (Advisor: Dr. Susan R. Kephart)

Sebastian Mortimer, Willamette University (Advisor: Dr. Susan R. Kephart)

Margo Paces, Fort Lewis College (Advisor: Dr. Ross A. McCauley)

Amanda Salvi, University of Michigan (Advisor: Dr. Selena Y. Smith)

Jake Summers, Connecticut College (Advisor: Dr. Chad Jones)|

Anna Talcott, Hillsdale College (Advisor: Dr. Ranessa Cooper)

Imena Valdes, Florida International University (Advisor: Dr. Suzanne Koptur)

Rebecca Valls, Florida International University (Advisor: Dr. Eric von Wettberg)

Scott Van De Verg, University of Hawai’i (Advisor: Dr. Cliff Morden)

Kayla Ventura, University of Florida (Advisor: Dr. Pamela S. Soltis)

Lauren Walter, Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Advisor: Dr. Shannon C.K. Straub)

PSB 62 (2) 2016

The BSA PLANTS Grant Recipients

The PLANTS (Preparing Leaders and Nurturing Tomorrow’s Scientists: Increasing the diversity of

plant scientists) program recognizes outstanding undergraduates from diverse backgrounds and

provides travel grants and mentoring for these students.

Timothy Batz, California State Polytechnic University (Advisor: Dr. Bharti Sharma)

Janet Mansaray, Howard University (Advisor: Dr. Janelle Burke)

Corey Milligan, Harris-Stowe State University (Advisor: Dr. Thomas Brown)

Brooke Palmer, Colorado State University (Advisor: Dr. Stacey Smith)

Vivianna Sanchez, Mount St. Mary’s University (Advisor: Dr. Adriane Jones)

Jaime Schwoch, Portland State University (Advisor: Dr. Mitch Cruzan)

Evelyn Valdez-Rangel, University of Houston-Downtown (Advisor: Dr. Michael Tobin)

Rebecca Valls, Florida International University (Advisor: Dr. Eric von Wettberg)

Nathan Vega, California State University-Fullerton (Advisor: Dr. Joshua Der)

Monica Warner, California State University - Dominguez Hills (Advisor: Dr. Kathryn Thiess)

Shan Wong, Florida International University (Advisor: Dr. Hong Liu)

Genetics Section Student Research Awards

Genetics Section Student Research Awards provide $500 for research funding and an additional

$500 for attendance at a future BSA meeting.

Ben Merritt, University of Cincinnati (Advisor: Dr. Theresa M. Culley), for the proposal titled

“Questions of genomic and geographic scales: Characterization and assessment of molecular tools

in Sedum lanceolatum Torr. (Crassulaceae)”

Megan Bontrager, University of British Columbia (Advisor: Dr. Amy Angert), for the proposal

titled “The roles of geography and environment in determining population genetic structure and

performance at the northern range edge of Clarkia pulchella”

Genetics Section Student Travel Awards

Adam Ramsay, University of Memphis (Advisor, Dr. Jennifer R. Mandel) for the Botany 2016

presentation: “Patterns of cyto-nuclear disequilibrium and the influence of heteroplasmy in wild

carrot, Daucus carota (Apiaceae)” Co-author: Jennifer R. Mandel

Charles Foster, University of Sydney (Advisor, Dr. Simon Ho) for the Botany 2016 presentation:

“Evaluating the impact of genomic data and priors on Bayesian estimates of the angiosperm

evolutionary timescale” Co-authors: Herve Sauquet, Marlien van der Merwe, Hannah

McPherson, Maurizio Rossetto and Simon Ho

PSB 62 (2) 2016

American Journal of Botany and Applications in

Plant Sciences: Higher Impact Factors

Thomson Reuters recently released its latest Journal Citation Reports, and we’re

proud that American Journal of Botany (AJB) and Applications in Plant Sciences

(APPS) both have higher impact factors:

AJB’s impact factor is now 2.8, and APPS is now 0.9.

Thanks to all contributing authors, reviewers, associate editors, and

editors-in-chief for their hard work!

Monica Warner, California State University, California State University, Dominguez Hills

(Advisor, Dr. Kathryn E. Theiss) for the Botany 2016 presentation: “Evaluating species

differentiation in endangered rush lillies using population genetics” Co-authors: Kathryn E.

Theiss and Susan Kephart

Developmental & Structural Section

Student Travel Awards

Muhammad Akbar Abdul Ghaffar, Ohio State University (Advisor, Katrina Cornish), for

the Botany 2016 presentation: “Histological study of Laticifer and rubber particle ontogeny in

Taraxacum kok-saghyz roots” Co-authors: Tea Meulia and Katrina Cornish

Bridget Giffei, Creighton University (Advisor, Mackenzie Taylor) for the Botany 2016

presentation: “Post-pollination development in Ruppia maritima (Ruppiaceae, Alismatales)” Co-

authors: Christie L. Dang, Kristine M. Altrichter, Ana E. Wilden and Mackenzie Taylor

The New Photosynthesis

System from LI-COR is Here

Introducing the LI-6800 Portable Photosynthesis System

We can’t wait to show

you.

See it for yourself at
www.licor.com/6800-in-action

Eat Your Weeds:

Edible and Wild Plants in Urban

Environmental Education and Outreach

By Lauren J. Frazee

Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natu-

ral Resources, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University

of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ

Sara Morris-Marano

Mohican Outdoor Center, Appalachian Mountain Club, Blairstown, NJ; Department

of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, School of Environmental and Biological

Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
Jennifer Blake-Mahmud

Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natu-

ral Resources, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State Universi-

ty of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ
Lena Struwe

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, School of Environmental and

Biological Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ; De-

partment of Plant Biology and Pathology, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences,

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ

Abstract

Edible weedy plants are ubiquitous in human-

dominated areas and provide opportunities to

combat plant blindness and improve citizens’

local ecological knowledge in formal and informal

urban environmental educatio (UEE) programs.

Weeds exemplify intriguing ecological, cultural,

and ethnobotanical concepts, making them ideal

resources for hands-on, socially relevant, and

personally meaningful educational activities.

Cosmopolitan, spontaneous, weedy plant species

are often freely accessible for use in the curricula of

many grade levels in varied educational venues as

well as in extra-curricular activities for all learners,

given that proper safety and legal precautions are

taken. We developed and hosted a UEE outreach

activity based on edible weedy plants at Rutgers

University as part of an annual, university-wide

event attended by over 80,000 people in the spring

of 2014. Incorporating edible weeds into such

programs teaches plant identification skills and

ecological appreciation in settings that are “close

to home” for most people.

SPECIAL FEATURES

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Key Words

botanical education; ecological knowledge;

food; informal education; K-99 education;

place-based learning; plant blindness;

species identification; urban environmental

education; urban vegetation

Footnotes

Manuscript received 26 January 2016;

revision accepted 31 March 2016.

Corresponding author email: lauren.

frazee@ rutgers.edu

doi: 10.3732/psb.1500003

Introduction

Positive human-nature interactions are vital

to counteract modern day environmental

problems, yet urbanization and development

continue to threaten our connection with

and understanding of the biosphere (Miller,

2005; White et al., 2010; Liefländer et al.,

2012). Current generations are becoming

increasingly estranged from living organisms

except other humans, supermarket food

plants, and pets (Miller, 2005). As of 2014,

82% of the population of the United States

lived in urban areas (United Nations, 2014);

native species diversity and abundance have

declined in cities (Gaston, 2010; Duncan et

al., 2011); and the ease of accessibility to green

space tends to diminish as city populations

grow (Fuller and Gaston, 2009). Together,

these phenomena may prevent much of the

world’s population from experiencing and

observing nature in a positive light (Morrone

and Meredith, 2003), ultimately leading to a

widespread lack of environmental concern

(Chawla, 1998). Therefore, developing

effective materials and curricula for urban

environmental education (UEE) that target

a broad audience is necessary to create an

ecologically and socially responsible society

for the future (Tidball and Krasny, 2010;

Ardoin et al., 2012).

Spontaneous urban plants (also known as

“weeds”) are ubiquitous in cities worldwide;

they inhabit every crack and corner of the

cityscape. The omnipresence of weeds in

modern cities and their suburbs makes them

some of the most universally accessible wild

species available for study and observation.

These weedy plants, whether native or non-

native, have traits that make them well suited

to highly disturbed human-dominated

environments such as suburban lawns or

pavement cracks (e.g. Cheptou et al., 2008; Del

Tredici, 2010). The sheer prevalence of weeds

makes them convenient and effective tools for

combatting plant blindness, defined as “the

inability to see or notice the plants in one’s

own environment, leading to the inability

to recognize the importance of plants in the

biosphere and in human affairs” (Wandersee

and Schussler, 1999; Smith, 2014). Learning

about weeds has the potential to encourage

people to notice the abundance of plant life

that surrounds them on a daily basis (Allen,

2003), even within cities. Studying weeds is

also a way to encourage learners of all ages

and backgrounds to appreciate, respect,

and inquire about nature in all of its diverse

forms (e.g., useful versus not useful plants, or

attractive versus “ugly” species).

Weedy plant foraging and city herbalism

have experienced a resurgence in popular

culture in the West in recent years (e.g. Wong

and Leroux, 2012; Lerner, 2013; Vorass-

Herrera, 2013; Blair, 2014). However, the fact

that most urban, weedy plant species have

ancient ethnobotanical histories and cultural

relevance for diverse human groups is not well

known today (Zimdahl, 2013). Chickweed, for

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

example, is one of the most common vascular

plants, found in over 100 city floras worldwide

(Aronson et al., 2014). Chickweed has a

well-documented ethnobotanical record

in traditional South American, European,

and Asian cultures: the young shoots and

leaves are used as ophthalmic and anti-

inflammatory medicines in Patagonia; used

as fodder to increase egg-laying in poultry in

central Italy; and cooked along with cabbage

for human nourishment in southwest China

(e.g. Guarrera et al., 2005; Weckerle et al.,

2006; Molares and Ladio, 2009). Yet, most

wellknown and beloved plants in today’s

Western cultures are showy horticultural

ornamentals and garden crops—not the wild,

weedy plants historically used for medicinal

or food purposes. Exposing people to the

edible, medicinal, and other cultural or

historical uses of weeds can stimulate people’s

interest and curiosity in wild organisms.

Furthermore, using edible urban weeds as

study organisms roots UEE in the socio-

ecological nature of the city by connecting

students and the public to the natural world

via cultural, culinary, biological, ecological,

and historical references and provides a truly

interdisciplinary framework for formal and

informal education (Tidball and Krasny, 2010;

Blanchet-Cohen and Reilly, 2013).

Using edible weedy plants in environmental

educational initiatives also supports the

development and maintenance of plant

identification skills. Being able to identify

a species and giving it a unique name is not

only important for educational efforts in

combatting plant blindness, but it is also

a crucial pre-requisite to foraging for wild

foods. Along with the ease and accessibility of

incorporating edible weedy plants into UEE,

a strong emphasis must be placed on safety

precautions. A strong foundation of botanical

identification skills and morphological

knowledge is necessary for the success and

safety of any edible wild plant program. Many

plants are edible, but many others are toxic.

Foragers, instructors, and learners must

be aware of toxic “lookalikes” and should

not consume any plant product until the

identity of the collected species is certain.

New foragers may choose to begin with a

mentor or guide to learn the basics of plant

identification. Thorough, reliable field guides

and repeated field identification practice

are essential for cautious foraging and can

help remind even the most experienced

field botanists of subtle yet potentially

important morphological differences between

specimens. In urban settings, in particular,

educators must also ensure that foragers are

careful to avoid potentially toxic urban sites

that have been contaminated by pesticides,

fertilizers, automotive fuel, heavy metals, or

animal waste, among other pollutants. The

possibility of individual reactions to allergens

in common plants should be discussed prior

to foraging. In addition to safety precautions,

foragers should always acquire permission

from landowners to access and remove plant

materials from a given site.

We recognized the potential of using

spontaneous weedy plants as an exciting

and relevant way to engage the public, so

we organized an outreach table featuring

edible weedy plants for our local community.

We held our outreach event at the annual

Rutgers Day—a university-wide open house

for Rutgers University in New Brunswick,

New Jersey—that engages and informs the

extended local community through activities

provided by university students, clubs, and

departments. The local and state-wide impact

of this celebration is significant: in 2013, this

event was attended by nearly 80,000 people.

For Rutgers Day 2014, our environmental

education table was entitled “Eat Your Weeds:

PSB 62 (2) 2016

How to Safely Savor Wild Edible Plants.” Our

overarching teaching goal was to encourage

community members to make meaningful

connections not only with living wild plants,

but also with ecological processes and

associated biodiversity in urban and suburban

areas through eating weeds (Table 1).

Activity Description

Plant species selection

Six edible urban weeds that are locally

abundant were chosen to be showcased at

our outreach table during Rutgers Day 2014

(Table 2): Taraxacum officinale (common

dandelion), Allium vineale (field garlic, wild

onion), Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard),

Stellaria media (common chickweed),

Cardamine hirsuta (hairy cress), and Rumex

acetosella (sheep sorrel). Although not as

common in suburban and urban areas, and

not always strictly weedy in our part of the

world, we also included Rosa canina (wild

rose) and Sambucus nigra (elderberry) as

highlighted species due to the commercial

availability of food products using these plants

(see Table 2). We also served two prepared

food products: Elderflower Lemonade from a

syrup concentrate (“Flädersaft,” IKEA Foods,

Sweden) and Rose Hip Soup (cold) from a

smoothie mix (“Nyponsoppa,” Ekströms,

Eslöv, Sweden).

Fact sheet preparation

Consuming and foraging for wild foods

involves certain risks, such as injury while

foraging, plants growing in polluted soils, and

poisoning due to eating misidentified plants. To

address these potential risks, we incorporated

safety information into our activity plan in

the following ways: (1) the back of each recipe

card listed foraging tips and species-specific

advice for plant identification; (2) we supplied

a general handout to provide information

on how to safely collect and consume edible,

weedy plants; and (3) we chose to highlight

plants that grow commonly in the lawns,

gardens, and along the sidewalk edges of

homes, where legal and informed foraging is

most likely to occur (with information about

pesticides, soil quality, and other risk factors).

Preparation of recipe cards and handouts on

safe foraging required approximately 8 person

hours.

Teaching Goals

Learning Outcomes

To inspire enthusiasm in a wide range of par-

ticipants To enable people to enjoy, risk- and

cost-free edible weedy plants

For participants across age ranges to express

excitement and enthusiasm in trying new cu-

linary dishes featuring weeds

To disseminate information regarding the

safe identification, procurement, and prepa-

ration of weedy plants

For participants to collect resources enabling

effective plant identification, collection, and

preparation with the intent to use them in the

future

To broaden perspectives and attitudes about-

weedy plants

For participants to entertain wider view-

points regarding the usefulness of sponta-

neous vegetation

Table 1. “Eat Your Weeds” educational outreach goals and outcomes.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Plant species name

Recipe(s) created

Role(s) in activity

Alliaria petiolata

Garlic mustard

(Brassicaceae)

Garlic Mustard Hummus

Sample tasting, recipe

handout, and live plant

display

Allium vineale

Wild garlic or onion

(Amaryllidaceae)

Cream Cheese Spread with Wild

Garlic Shoots

Sample tasting, recipe

handout, and live plant

display

Cardamine hirsuta

Hairy cress

(Brassicaceae)

Hairy Cress Salad with Goat

Cheese, Walnuts, and Honey-

Dijon Vinaigrette

Recipe handout and live

plant display

Rosa canina

Wild rose

(Rosaceae)

Rose Hip Soup*

Sample tasting and live

plant display

Rumex acetosella

Sheep sorrel

(Polygonaceae)

Fresh Fruit Salad with Sheep

Sorrel and Sweet Whipped

Cream

Recipe handout

Sambucus nigra

Elderberry

(Adoxaceae)

Elderflower Lemonade*

Sample tasting

Stellaria media

Chickweed

(Caryophyllaceae)

Sautéed Chickweed with Ginger,

Garlic, and Soy Sauce

Recipe handout and live

plant display

Taraxacum officinale

Dandelion

(Asteraceae)

Dandelion Flower Lemonade†;

Deep-Fried Dandelion Flowers;

Orecchiette Pasta with Italian

Sausage, Dandelion Greens, and

Lemon Zest

Sample tasting, recipe

handouts, and live plant

display

Table 2. Food and drink featured plant contents and role.
Notes:

*Rose Hip Soup and Elderflower Lemonade are not original recipes; these beverages are avail-

able commercially. †Dandelion Flower Lemonade was used as the sample tasting dish for T.

officinale.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Recipe preparation

Over several weeks we developed eight original

recipes based on six of our highlighted weedy

plant species. We selected three of the eight

original recipes to feature in our free tastings,

using three species of the most easily accessible

and identifiable weeds: Alliaria petiolata,

Allium vineale, and Taraxacum officinale.

For ingredients we spent approximately 3

hours foraging for plant material locally

in areas where pesticides and herbicides

had not been applied. We prepared Cream

Cheese Spread with Wild Garlic Shoots (Fig.

1), Garlic Mustard Hummus, Elderflower

Lemonade, Rose Hip Soup, and Dandelion

Flower Lemonade in bulk to offer as samples

on crackers and in small tasting cups at our

table (see Table 2). Food preparation prior

to the event required approximately 6 hours

to prepare the necessary quantities (i.e. two

gallons of Rose Hip Soup, two gallons of

Dandelion Flower Lemonade, two gallons of

Elderflower Lemonade, and 64 ounces each of

Garlic Mustard Hummus and Cream Cheese

Spread with Wild Garlic Shoots).

Event day set-up

With set-up teams consisting of two people

and two handcarts, we set up three tables along

one of the major pedestrian paths on Cook

Campus, Rutgers University during Rutgers

Day. Our outreach area was equipped with a

large, custom-designed overhead sign reading

“WEEDS” made from clear plastic tubing

filled with a variety of dried weedy plant parts

(Fig. 2). A newly developed, original logo

that read “EAT YOUR WEEDS” appeared

on all outreach materials (Fig. 3). Outreach

materials included recipe cards with a picture

of its featured edible weed and specific foraging

tips; new, illustrated field identification guides

Figure 1. Cream Cheese Spread with Wild

Garlic Shoots and hairy cress garnish (center)

and Garlic Mustard Hummus (either side) on

crackers. These recipes were prepared in bulk

to distribute sample tastings at our “Eat Your

Weeds” table at Rutgers Day 2014. Photo: cc //

Lena Struwe, 2014.
to 34 local weeds; and handouts on safe

foraging practices. We dug up and potted over

20 living examples of weedy species featured

in our field guide and displayed these on one

of the tables (see Fig. 2). We also incentivized

food sampling by handing out stickers about

weeds to all tasters with fun and informative

messages such as “I eat weeds,” “Weeds are also

made of stardust,” “I drink weeds,” “Weeds are

superevolutionary,” and “Without humans, no

weeds.” All of our materials (recipe cards, field

guide, and foraging safety handout) are freely

available as PDF files on our website and blog

(Struwe, 2014; http://4weeds.blogspot.com).

We staffed our table with two to four rotating

volunteers throughout the day.column.}

Results

At the 8-hour-long Rutgers Day event on

26 April 2014, we distributed over 2000 free

samples of weedy food and beverage items

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Figure 2. A memorable sign, reading “WEEDS” and made out of dried plant material in tubes, sits

above potted weedy plant example specimens at our “Eat Your Weeds” table at Rutgers Day 2014.

Pictured from left to right are Lauren J. Frazee, volunteer Zachary Bunda, and Dr. Lena Struwe.

Photo: cc // Jennifer Blake-Mahmud, 2014.

at our outreach table. We estimate that we

communicated directly or indirectly (though

visuals, handout materials, or “sticker

interactions”) with 2000 to 3000 visitors about

the public misconceptions and overlooked

virtues of weeds in today’s society, including

but not limited to edibility. We also handed out

over 400 recipe cards and about 500 field guide

pamphlets. Almost 84,000 people attended

Rutgers Day 2014 overall (Szteinbaum et al.,

2014).

Although Rutgers Day attracts community

members of diverse backgrounds, there were

common themes in responses from the public.

While we conducted no formal assessment of

visitors to our table to evaluate our learning

goals and outcomes, volunteers jotted down

notes of interesting stories and interactions

during the event. Five to six table volunteers

then discussed these anecdotes during our

reflection and debriefing process, and here we

present and interpret that information. Table

visitors included faculty members, students,

friends, and parents as well as local families

with elderly relatives and toddlers in tow. Most

people were very interested in the sample

tastings, and some returned to the table twice

or more that day. The most popular recipe

cards were for Deep-Fried Dandelion Flowers

and Cream Cheese Spread with Wild Garlic

Shoots. Many visitors quickly recognized our

example specimens and sample ingredients

(see Table 2; Fig. 2) as plants that are common

in their own yards or neighborhoods. The most

common question for plant identification

was about Lamium purpureum (deadnettle),

a common weed in many front yards at that

time of the year (i.e., early-mid spring), and

many people wanted to know how to rid their

yards of it.

Children as well as adults added the stickers to

their clothing and wore them around campus

for the remainder of the day, potentially

providing (and provoking) interactions on

weedy plant topics with additional visitors

that not yet had visited (or could not visit) our

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Figure 3. An original logo created for our “Eat

Your Weeds” table at Rutgers Day 2014 appear-

edon all outreach materials. Image: cc // Lena

Struwe, 2014

table. Many adults reminisced with us about

what they or their older relatives used to eat

earlier in their lives and told us (and children,

if present) about foraging for wild plants as

children, drinking older relatives’ dandelion

wine, and where the best spots were for

finding certain species. A disabled veteran

told us about foraging for stinging nettle in

New Jersey and that he appreciated our effort

to educate the public about edible plants.

Discussion

Using edible weeds in UEE is an effective

way to stimulate curiosity in plants, to

broaden perspectives on spontaneous

weedy vegetation, and to encourage plant

identification skills. This activity combats

plant blindness by encouraging participants to

observe and experience weedy plants, which

are often overlooked and underappreciated.

The intended take-home message for festival-

goers and visitors to our table was: “Notice

these plants, all plants, and all life, for that

matter; experience them; enjoy them; and find

out what they do and represent” (see Table 1).

This type of activity strengthens connections

between the people of the New Jersey–New

York metropolitan area and their local, urban

flora.

We attribute our success in implementing our

outreach program on edible, urban weeds

to three factors. First, utilizing local, urban

weeds in UEE is a means of outdoor, place-

based learning (Theobald, 1997; Kolb, 2014).

In place-based learning, students make use

of nearby resources to study both the natural

world and the community; all such lessons

come directly from the context of the local

environment (Gruenewald and Smith, 2014).

Place-based curricula have also been found

to increase student motivations for scholastic

achievement (Powers, 2004). Moreover, the

opportunities (or “places” themselves) for

studying weeds occur at every point in time

and space along the urban-rural gradient.

The cityscape itself is transformed into a

living laboratory when weeds become study

organisms. Students can uproot local weeds,

bring them to their classroom, and interact

with them directly. Getting students out and

into their surroundings to experience wild

organisms will help combat the ongoing trend

of human disconnection from nature through

direct contact with plants (Miller, 2005).

Second, the edible weeds that we presented

at our activity have traditional significance

for many ethnic and cultural groups and are

highly recognizable. Simply put, humans

both love and hate weeds. In general, weeds

have been and continue to be associated with

all human settlements in urban, suburban,

and rural environments worldwide; weeds

are a universal human phenomenon. All

of the weedy plants featured in this activity

are economically important as sources of

flavoring agents, medicine, vegetables, fruits,

and/or serve as ornamental species (see Table

PSB 62 (2) 2016

2; Wiersema and León, 2013). In modern

cities, weedy plants are considered important

in the provisioning of ecosystem services

such as habitat for wild species, microhabitat

regulation, and air filtration (Robinson and

Lundholm, 2012). The connections between

metropolitan areas, people, and weeds are a

result of the complex sociopolitical ecology

of urban development (Gaston, 2010). In this

way, we presented social as well as biological

and cultural contexts for learning about each

plant.

Third, our tasting opportunities, take-home

recipes and guides, thought-provoking

stickers, and weedy plant example specimens

encouraged an active, multisensory,

kinesthetic, and engaging experience (Stern

et al., 2014). Eating, in itself, is a personal

action that can translate into multi-sensory,

experiential learning. Visitors to our outreach

table could choose to partake in learning

and exploration by any or all of the following

methods: eating or drinking free samples;

smelling plants, choosing favorite recipes

for future use; perusing species guides and

safety pamphlets; observing live plants

labeled with species names; talking to us and

asking questions; and even sharing their own

experiences with fellow visitors.

In all, food is inherently motivating and,

perhaps most importantly, eating weeds is

a novelty in today’s society. We tend to care

about and remember the texture, tastes, and

smells of certain foods, thereby encouraging

connections with personal experiences. Using

edible plants and food preparation methods

in educational activities such as the Food,

Math, and Science Teaching Enhancement

Resource Initiative developed at East Carolina

University (USA) has shown to increase

students’ abilities to retain information in the

life sciences (Duffrin et al., 2010; Hovland

et al., 2013). Moreover, both accompanying

students in local foraging activities and

encouraging members of the public to engage

in independent wild plant foraging and

then preparing wild plant foods promotes

learning-by-doing, or experience-based

learning. Outdoor, field-based experiences

in general can be highly memorable and

beneficial to learners (Dillon et al., 2006).

Similarly, schoolyard vegetable gardening

activities have been touted as a key method for

improving children’s environmental attitudes

and aptitude in the sciences (Waliczek and

Zajicek, 1999; Williams and Dixon, 2013).

Risk is an inherent part of foraging and

consuming wild plant species, but the design

of this activity helps to minimize those risks.

We chose to highlight certain species for

Weeds are natural

choices for use in

urban environmental

education due to their

relative abundance

in cities and suburbs,

interesting ecological

niches, and strong

historical associations

with a diversity of

cultural practices.

These are globally

accessible resources

with broad appeal

for informal public

outreach as well

as formal nature

education.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

sample tastings (i.e., dandelion, wild onion/

wild garlic, and garlic mustard) that are easy to

identify by characteristic leaf morphology and

have no poisonous “look-alikes.” Dandelion

flower heads and their tufted, wind-blown

fruits are well-recognized in modern culture,

and their use as a decorative motif—in

stationery, interior design, and even tattoos—

has recently surged. Wild onion and garlic

mustard leaves have distinct, pungent scents

when broken. All of these species are usually

found in high density and abundance where

they are present and generally do not cause

allergic reactions in humans. (However, people

with food allergies should remain cautious.) In

addition, these species look strikingly different

from the most common poisonous plants in

the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United

States, such as jimsonweed, nightshade, and

poison ivy, which can cause symptoms such

as gastric irritation and painful rashes. We

strongly discourage consuming or serving

any foods made with wild plant species unless

their species identities have been confirmed

with 100% accuracy. All plant species used

in this activity can be harvested up to two

weeks before food preparation, refrigerated,

and verified with a specialist ahead of time.

Local botanical societies or institutions of

higher education may be able to assist with

verification. Learning to forage for edible

plants, or simply knowing the toxic plants

in your environment, necessitates a strong

knowledge in botanical identification of

species and their morphologies and provides

an excellent argument for improved botanical

education at the K-99 level.

Using urban edible plants in informal public

education easily lends itself to formal lesson

planning in the plant sciences and UEE as well

as to other informal contexts in diverse venues

and seasons. These activities could be prepared

for small or large crowds anywhere there are

wild edible plants, but the accessibility of edible

weeds in city and suburban environments

makes them especially meaningful for UEE. In

the mid-Atlantic and northeastern urbanized

United States, educators can typically forage

during much of the growing season for plant

materials or sample specimens of the species

used here (after asking permission from

property owners or land managers, where

necessary). Wild onion grows prolifically in

lawns in the early spring and late fall in this

region, whereas dandelion and garlic mustard

have leafy growth in lawns and suburban

woods, respectively, from the early spring

through the fall. Moreover, there are numerous

other edible urban plant species available for

harvest and study outside of temperate zones.

Of the 17 most common urban plants in cities

around the world (Aronson et al., 2014), all

but four have well-described edible and/or

medicinal uses (Wiersema and León, 2013).

We recommend that educators account

for certain logistical factors when hosting

large-scale outreach events based on foods

and beverages made from urban weeds.

The limiting factor in making this activity

successful for large crowds (such as Rutgers

Day) is simply the number of volunteer hours

needed for bulk food preparation and “plating”

or serving during the event. Crackers topped

with Garlic Mustard Hummus and Cream

Cheese Spread with Wild Garlic Shoots

were taken up by visitors at a rate exceeding

the speed at which we could prepare them.

Various strategies could be implemented to

relieve volunteers from this burden, such as

using squeeze bottles to dispense toppings

onto crackers, planning to serve less labor-

intensive samples, or simply doing more

preparatory work ahead of time. Furthermore,

we suggest serving at least one drink and at

least one solid food and choosing recipes that

are palatable across a wide range of tastes

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

(e.g. sweet and savory) to diversify the menu.

Tasters should have easy access to ingredient

lists to avoid problems with food allergies and

intolerances. Another important planning

consideration is seasonality. For example, the

herbaceous weedy species harvested for this

event are not available in late fall and winter

in temperate areas. However, we do see the

potential for educators to develop seasonal

edible weed activities that reflect the change

in plant species composition throughout the

year, especially in temperate climates.

Conclusions

Our “Eat Your Weeds” outreach table at Rutgers

Day 2014 in New Brunswick, NJ, is an example

of how to incorporate plant- and place-based

learning, socioecological connections, and

direct contact with wild organisms in urban

environments in a practical and fun way.

We have evaluated our outreach activity as

highly successful in encouraging community

members to become more familiar with local,

wild plant biodiversity in an urban setting

(see Table 1). We received overwhelmingly

positive feedback and recognition from

visitors, observers, and university media

(Szteinbaum et al., 2014). Edible urban weeds

are an easy and economical teaching tool

for active, culturally relevant, place-based

learning in UEE and in combatting plant

blindness. Weeds are natural choices for use

in UEE due to their relative abundance in

cities and suburbs, interesting ecological

niches, and strong historical associations

with a diversity of cultural practices. These

are globally accessible resources with broad

appeal for informal public outreach as well as

formal nature education.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Aishwarya Bhattacharjee,

Zachary Bunda, Leif Albert, Natalie Howe,

Carlos Olivares, and Julia Perzley for

preparing and serving food and volunteering

at our table on Rutgers Day 2014. We are also

grateful to Laura Shappell for designing the

field guide pamphlet, which was illustrated by

Bobbi Angell. The “Eat Your Weeds” project

was sponsored by the Chrysler Herbarium,

and our Rutgers Day table was arranged

through Department of Ecology, Evolution,

and Natural Resources and Department of

Plant Biology and Pathology at The School

of Environmental and Biological Sciences at

Rutgers University. This project was supported

by a USDA-Hatch grant (NJ17145) and a

USDA planning grant (WERA1015) awarded

to L.S.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Literature Cited

Allen, W. 2003. Plant blindness. BioScience 53: 926.

Ardoin, N. M., C. Clark, and E. Kelsey. 2012.

An exploration of future trends in environmental

education research. Environmental Education Re-

search 19: 499-520.

Aronson, M. F. J., F. A. La Sorte, C. H. Nilon, M.

Katti, M. A. Goddard, C. A. Lepczyk, P. S. War-

ren, et al. 2014. A global analysis of the impacts

of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals

key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences

281: 20133330.

Blair, K. 2014. The wild wisdom of weeds: 13 es-

sential plants for human survival. Chelsea Green

Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, USA.

Blanchet-Cohen, N., and C. Reilly. 2013. Teach-

ers’ perspectives on environmental education

in multicultural contexts: towards culturally-re-

sponsive environmental education. Teaching and

Teacher Education 36: 12-22.

Chawla, L. 1998. Significant life experiences re-

visited: a review of research on sources of envi-

ronmental sensitivity. Journal of Environmental

Education 29: 11-21.

Cheptou, P.-O., O. Carrue, S. Rouifed, and A.

Cantarel. 2008. Rapid evolution of seed disper-

sal in an urban environment in the weed Crepis

sancta. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, USA 105: 3796-3799.

Del Tredici, P. 2010. Wild urban plants of the

Northeast. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New

York, New York, USA.

Dillon, J., M. Rickinson, K. Teamey, M. Morris,

M. Y. Choi, D. Sanders, and P. Benefield. 2006.

The value of outdoor learning: evidence from re-

search in the UK and elsewhere. School Science

Review 87: 107-111.

Duffrin, M. W., J. Hovland, V. Carraway-Stage,

S. McLeod, C. Duffrin, S. Phillips, D. Rivera, et

al. 2010. Using food as a tool to teach science to

3rd grade students in Appalachian Ohio. Journal

of Food Science Education 9: 41-46.

Duncan, R. P., S. E. Clemants, R. T. Corlett, A. K.

Hahs, M. A. McCarthy, M. J. McDonnell, M. K.

Schwartz, et al. 2011. Plant traits and extinction in

urban areas: a meta-analysis of 11 cities. Global

Ecology and Biogeography 20: 509-519.

Fuller, R. A., and K. J. Gaston. 2009. The scaling

of green space coverage in European cities. Biol-

ogy Letters 5: 352-355.

Gaston, K. J. [ed.], 2010. Urban ecology. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom.

Gruenewald, D. A., and G. A. Smith [eds.], 2007.

Place-based education in the global age. Law-

rence Erlbaum Associates, New York, New York.

Guarrera, P. M., G. Forti, and S. Marignoli. 2005.

Ethnobotanical and ethnomedicinal uses of plants

in the district of Acquapendente (Latium, Central

Italy). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 96: 429-444.

Hovland, J. A., V. A. Carraway-Stage, A. Cela, C.

Collins, S. R. Díaz, A. Collins, and M. W. Duffrin.

2013. Food-based science curriculum increases

4th graders multidisciplinary science knowledge.

Journal of Food Science Education 12: 81-86.

Kolb, D. A. 2014. Experiential learning: experi-

ence as the source of learning and development,

2nd ed. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey, USA.

Lerner, R. 2013. Dandelion hunter: foraging the

urban wilderness. Lyons Press, Guilford, Con-

necticut, USA.

Liefländer, A. K., G. Fröhlich, F. X. Bogner, and

P. W. Schultz. 2012. Promoting connectedness

with nature through environmental education.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Environmental Education Research 19: 370-384.

Miller, J. R. 2005. Biodiversity conservation and

the extinction of experience. TRENDS in Ecolo-

gy and Evolution 20: 430-434.

Molares, S., and A. Ladio. 2009. Ethnobotanical

review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: use pat-

terns on a regional scale. Journal of Ethnophar-

macology 122: 251-260.

Morrone, M., and J. Meredith. 2003. Underserved

audiences and environmental education in Ohio.

Applied Environmental Education and Communi-

cation 2: 203-212.

Powers, A. 2004. An evaluation of four place-

based education programs. Journal of Environ-

mental Education 35: 17-32.

Robinson, S. L., and J. T. Lundholm. 2012. Eco-

system services provided by urban spontaneous

vegetation. Urban Ecosystems 15: 545-557.

Smith, V. A. 3 Sept. 2014. “Botanists battle ‘plant

blindness’ with seeds of knowledge.” Philadel-

phia Inquirer [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA]:

A1. Print.

Stern, M. J., R. B. Powell, and D. Hill. 2014. En-

vironmental education program evaluation in the

new millennium: what do we measure and what

have we learned? Environmental Education Re-

search 20: 581-611.

Struwe, L. 2011 onward. For weeds everywhere

blog. Website

http://4weeds.blogspot.com

Szteinbaum, S., E. Petenko, J. Pastor, M. K. Su-

naz, and J. Sacasa. 28 April 2014. “Sixth annual

Rutgers Day attracts record-breaking crowds.”

Daily Targum [New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA].

Theobald, P. 1997. Teaching the commons. Jour-

nal of Curriculum Studies 30: 601-603.

Tidball, K. G., and M. E. Krasny. 2010. Urban en-

vironmental education from a social-ecological per-

spective: conceptual framework for civic ecology

education. Cities and the Environment 3: article 11.

United Nations, Department of Economic and So-

cial Affairs, Population Division. 2014. World Ur-

banization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, High-

lights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).

Vorass-Herrera, M. 2013. The front yard forager:

identifying, collecting, and cooking the 30 most

common urban weeds. Mountaineers Books, Se-

attle, Washington, USA.

Waliczek, T. M., and J. M. Zajicek. 1999. School

gardening: improving environmental attitudes of

children through hands-on learning. Journal of

Environmental Horticulture 17: 1740-1804.

Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 1999. Pre-

venting plant blindness. American Biology Teach-

er 61: 82-86.

Weckerle, C. S., F. K. Huber, Y. Yongping, and S.

Weibang. 2006. Plant knowledge of the Shuhi in

the Hengduan Mountains, Southwest China. Soci-

ety for Economic Botany 60: 3-23.

White, P., J. S. Golden, K. P. Biligiri, and K. Ka-

loush. 2010. Modeling climate change impacts of

pavement production and construction. Resource

Conservation and Recycling 54: 776-782.

Wiersema, J. H., and B. León. 2013. World eco-

nomic plants: a standard reference, 2nd ed. CRC

Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Williams, D. R., and P. S. Dixon. 2013. Impact

of garden-based learning on academic outcomes

in schools: synthesis of research between 1990

and 2010. Review of Educational Research 83:

211–235.

Wong, T. M., and E. Leroux. 2012. Foraged fla-

vor: finding fabulous ingredients in your backyard

or farmer’s market. Clarkson Potter Publishers,

New York, New York, USA.

Zimdahl, R. L. 2013. Ethnobotany: fundamentals

of weed science. Academic Press, Oxford, United

Kingdom.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Abstract

“Plant blindness” is lack of botanical

awareness. In Shakespearean London,

knowledge of plants among the general

public can be characterized as extensive.

Allusions to dozens of wildflowers, weeds,

and plant-derived potions were immediately

understood by Shakespeare’s audiences. By

comparison, in modern London, a published

study showed that secondary level students,

graduates, and a substantial portion of

biology teachers, could scarcely recognize ten

common wildflowers. Eight of these ten are

referenced in Shakespeare, and all appear in

British folklore. This comparison of historical

versus contemporary plant knowledge in

a given locale appears unique, but studies

focusing on comparisons of contemporary

rural versus urban environments are available.

Both categories of comparisons support the

conclusion that contemporary urban life

promotes plant blindness. Disconnection

from agricultural and natural environments

(“nature deficit disorder”), not zoocentrism,

is likely responsible for “plant blindness.”

Electronic media with botanical themes

offer one potential venue for re-establishing

awareness of plants.

Shakespeare, Plant Blindness and

Electronic Media

Key Words

botanical literacy; nature deficit disorder;

plant blindness; Shakespeare; video games

Footnotes

Resubmission received 25 March 2016;

revision accepted 26 March 2016.

Corresponding author email: fdugan@wsu.

edu

doi: 10.3732/psb.1600002

Introduction:

The Bard’s Botany

In the preface to Roy Vickery’s (2010) volume

on British and Irish plant lore, a tale is told of

the great ethnobotanist Richard Evans Schultes

(1915-2001). “The great man” in conversation

with Vickery makes the pronouncement,

“The British Isles have no ethnobotany.” The

majority of Vickery’s 226 pages document

the opposite. It is true that we don’t think of

peoples of the British Isles as using plant-

derived body paint in ceremonies and rituals,

nor as consulting shamans intoxicated on

plant hallucinogens, so in this sense Schultes

was correct. But that the Isles host centuries-

old plant lore is beyond dispute. Although

Vickery (2010) deserves a careful read from

any persons interested in plant lore of the

European tradition, an alternative source for

much of this lore is found in more widely

read literature: Shakespeare. This plant lore is

highly pertinent to the current concept and

debates regarding “plant blindness.”

By Frank M. Dugan

USDA-ARS Plant Introduction, Washing-

ton State University, Pullman, WA.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Most readers will recall in Shakespeare’s

plays allusions to plant products, such as a

love potion:

The juice of it on sleeping eyelids laid

Will make man or woman madly dote

Upon the next live creature that it sees.

(Midsummer Night’s Dream II.i.)

Or, plant poisons:

… I would the milk

Thy mother gave thee when thou suck’dst

her breast

Had been a little ratsbane for thy sake!

(1 Henry VI V.iv.)

Such themes are abundant in Shakespeare.

Tabor (1970) provided a catalog of abundant

instances of plant poisons and potions in

Shakespeare.

Shakespeare also had knowledge of weedy

plants, and attributed to them symbolic as

well as agronomic significance (Archer et al.,

2012). Thus we have Lear’s daughter Cordelia:

Alack ‘tis he: why, he was met even now

As mad as the vext sea; singing aloud;

Crown’d with rank fumitor and fur row-

weeds,

With bur-docks, hemlock, nettles,

cucko-flowers,

Darnel, and all the idle weeds that grow

In our sustaining corn.

(King Lear IV.iv)

Or, the Duke of Burgundy:

…her fallow leas

The darnel, hemlock, and rank fumitory,

Do root upon …

…and nothing teems

But hateful docks, rough thistles, kecksies,

burs

(Henry V V.ii)

Figure 1. Lear’s crown of weeds (from Clarke

and Clarke, 1864). Alternative representations

of Lear’s crown as containing attractive daisies,

clover, wildflowers, even roses, etc., miss the

bard’s intent (Archer et al., 2012).
Leaving aside for the moment the botanical

identity of such plants as kecksies and cucko-

flowers, it seems apparent that weeds such

as “rank fumitory” are both symptom and

symbol of things going badly (Fig. 1), and that

Shakespeare could specify quite a few weeds

(Archer et al., 2012). However, most analyses

of Shakespeare’s botany have focused on the

Shakespearean flowers.

Over decades, there have been reams

written on flowers and their connotations in

Shakespeare (e.g., Ellacombe, 1884; Grindon,

1883; Savage, 1923; Thiselton Dyer, 1884;

Willes, 2015). For example, we have Oberon,

on scenic beauty:

I know a bank where the wild thyme

blows,

Where oxslips and the nodding violet

grows;

Quite over-canopied with lush wood

bine,

With sweet musk-roses, and with

eglantine

(Midsummer Night’s Dream II.i.)

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

Or, Autolycus, singing for joy:

When daffodils begin to peer,

With hey! the doxy over the dale,

Why, then comes in the sweet o’the

year

(Winter’s Tale IV.ii)

The whole point of this foray into potions,

weeds, and flowers is that Shakespeare was

familiar with many plants, their significance,

and their products. Approximately 190 plant

names appear in Shakespeare (Rydén, 1978).

Given the time and changes in language that

separate us from Shakespeare, and given

that he wrote well in advance of Linnaean

taxonomy, it’s understandable that some

names remain ambiguous for us. It’s difficult

to determine with precision exactly which

Linnaean species were intended by some

names, such as “lady-smocks” (Lever, 1952).

However, when Shakespeare used flowers

as symbols, he assumed his audience would

understand. Various sources strongly affirm

that Shakespeare’s audiences understood

his botanical allusions and were otherwise

familiar with numerous plants and their

properties: “It is essential to remember that

the flower symbolism had to be understood

by an ordinarily intelligent audience, or

the scene would be meaningless” (Lever,

1952). Shakespeare’s use of these symbols

was “familiar and meaningful to Elizabethan

theatre-goers” (Rydén, 1978). Occasionally

the significance of a name for a given plant,

or herbal potion, may have eluded some of

his audience, but this was very unlikely to

happen consistently. “With their virtues and

properties (real or imagined) plants were, to

an extent unknown today, in the centre of

everyone’s life” (Rydén, 1978). “Town and

country dweller alike knew the names of

herbs and flowers used in cookery, household

remedies and gardens” (Boas Hall, quoted

in Rydén, 1978). Although correspondence

between Shakespearean plant names and

their Linnaean counterparts may sometimes

be in doubt, there is no doubt that “Each

plant would ‘speak’ to Shakespeare’s audience”

(Thomas and Faircloth, 2014). “Shakespeare’s

botanical references are not mere literary

devices; they take us to the very heart of social

life in Elizabethan and Jacobean England”

(Willes, 2015). We can reasonably assume that

most of his audience recognized several dozen

plant names and their contextual allusions in

the plays and sonnets.

Remember also that Shakespeare’s London

(the growing urban center, plus neighboring

villages later subsumed into greater London),

although rapidly expanding, was about

200,000 inhabitants at the end of the 16th

century (Porter, 2009). He or any other

inhabitant could walk out of densely populated

neighborhoods into the countryside (or if

equipped with horse or carriage, ride out even

more quickly) and no doubt a high proportion

of Londoners often did: “Nature was close at

hand for any Londoner with eyes to see” (Tuan,

1978). They, far more often than modern city

dwellers, became familiar with the plants,

livestock, and wildlife of the countryside

even if these persons had not originated

from rural areas. Moreover, those who were

literate were exposed to an increasing array of

cheap, printed herbals and agronomic tracts

(Dugan, 2015). Also, with the National Health

Service being non-existent in those days,

most people in London or elsewhere, when ill

(or when in need of love charms, spells, etc.),

turned to what was known as cunning folk

(usually “wise-women” or “herb-wives”), or

to the apothecaries to whom the herb-wives

sold plants, for plant-based therapies (Allen

and Hatfield, 2004; Beith, 1995). Neither

countryside nor plants were far away for the

common Londoner.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

The Bard’s Audiences

Compared to the Modern

Urban Public

Assuming that the hypothesis of high botanical

literacy amongst Shakespeare’s audiences is

well supported by the above arguments, it

seems irresistible to compare this situation

with that of today’s urban populations.

Such comparisons are methodologically

problematic, given differences in gender,

age, and ethnicity between audiences of

Shakespeare’s time and populations in today’s

London. And studies addressing the botanical

literacy of modern, London populations are, to

put it mildly, rare. I’ve found one: Bebbington

(2005). In this study, 812 A-level biology

students (essentially the equivalent of high

school seniors in the United States), another

92 persons who had graduated from A-level,

plus 21 biology teachers, were presented with

a color sheet illustrating ten very common

British wildflowers (ragwort, cow parsley,

foxglove, red campion, germander speedwell,

primrose, lesser celandine, common dog

violet, common daisy, and greater plantain).

Although considerable latitude was given

in naming (e.g., any form of “violet” would

do for “common dog violet”), no A-level

students were able to name eight or more

plants, 10% could name none, and 93%

could name only four or fewer plants. Recent

graduates of A-level, still enrolled in some

form of schooling, exhibited slightly greater

competence: 3% to 5% could name eight or

more plants, but 81% to 91% of graduates

could name only four or fewer plants. Biology

teachers fared best, with only 5% able to name

none, 10% were able to name all ten plants,

34% could name only four or fewer plants, and

38% could name eight or more. (On the online

pdf, gray scale with deplorable resolution

[okay, we all have our excuses], yours truly,

the plant scientist, initially recognized seven:

cow parsley, foxglove, campion, primrose,

violet, daisy, and plantain.)

How many of these ten plants can be

documented as relevant to Shakespeare’s

audiences? Rydén (1978) does not index

ragwort, foxglove, speedwell, or celandine,

but has numerous entries for primrose,

daisy, and violet; considers cow parsley one

of the contenders for “kecksies” along with

other umbelliferous plants; ties campion to

“Cuckow flower” (probably Lychnis, “a much-

vexed problem”); and specifies plantain as a

medicinal plant in Shakespeare. Rydén’s list of

Latin (Linnaean) names is much shorter than

that for common names, reflecting ambiguities

in assignment, and some of the Latin names

below are absent in Rydén (1978).

Name assignment, sometimes encompassing

Latin names, is collectively more extensive

in other relevant sources, but not necessarily

more accurate: Of the ten plants, Savage

(1923) indexes primrose (Primula vulgaris),

violet (Viola odorata), daisy (Bellis perennis)

and plantain (Plantago major) as occurring

in Shakespeare, as did Ellacombe (1884),

but with the latter sometimes lacking (or

with differing) specific epithets. Cook (1940)

provides references (play, act, scene, and line)

for primrose, violet, and daisy. Cow parsley, or

Anthriscus sylvestris (Darbyshire et al., 1999)

is probably Shakespeare’s “kecksies” (above),

used to refer to weedy plants in the Apiaceae

in general, and sometimes cow parsley in

particular (Thomas and Faircloth, 2014).

Ellacombe (1884) and Thiselton Dyer (1884)

thought kecksies to be dried stalks of hemlock,

but this opinion is discounted by Thomas and

Faircloth (2014) on the basis that hemlock

is otherwise designated in Shakespeare. The

“cucko-flower” in Shakespeare is very likely

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

the red campion (Elton, 1904), a name applied

to various reddish or pink-tinted flowers in

Silene (Lychnis).

Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) is a different case

because, “Strangely enough, the foxglove … is

not mentioned by Shakespeare”—“strangely”

because the plant is striking and was common

in Shakespeare’s British landscape (Grieve,

1931). It was recorded as used by common folk,

topically (as a bath), against fairy changelings

(Lamb, 2007), and was in 17th-century

London sought by gardeners (Clayton, 2003),

so it is highly probable that Shakespearean

audiences knew it well. Bebbington’s (2005)

“germander speedwell” (

Veronica chamaedrys

)

is a bit more slippery. Speedwell or “Fluellen”

(“members of the Veronicaceae family”) seem

represented only by the name of a character

in Shakespeare, Captain Fluellen (Henry V

IV.i.), in which the name of the plant seems

to indicate the character’s status (Thomas and

Faircloth, 2014). Lesser celandine (Ranunculus

ficaria

, one of the yellow buttercups

) is

suggested for one of Shakespeare’s somewhat

ambiguous references, cuckoo-bud (differing

from cuckoo-flower, according to Thomas and

Faircloth, 2014). “Cuckoo-buds” are denoted

simply as Ranunculus in Savage (1923), or what

moderns often call buttercups, an opinion

seconded by Ellacombe (1878) and Willes

(2015). A remaining challenge is “ragwort”

(usually J

acobaea vulgaris, syn. Senecio

jacobaea, but sometimes related species

and I could find no direct reference to it in

Shakespeare. The poet John Clare, an ardent

admirer of Shakespeare, wrote a sonnet, “The

Ragwort” (1832), in which “tattered weed

of small worth held” (Shakespeare’s second

sonnet) is presented as “tattered leaves” of

Clare’s first line. Ragwort was, in the British

Isles of the 16th century and later, thought to

be used by fairies as a “riding stick” (Simpson,

1995), implying a popular awareness of

the plant. “

Gerard [the famed herbalist,

contemporary with Shakespeare] noted

that the ragwort or St. James’s wort (Senecio

jacobaea) was known by country people as

‘stagger-wort’” (Drury, 1985).

So, Shakespeare very probably alluded to eight

of Bebbington’s (2005) ten plants (cow parsley,

campion, speedwell, primrose, celandine,

violet, daisy, plantain; or their closest

relatives, very similar in appearance and

perhaps indistinguishable at the time), and

the other two (ragwort, foxglove) are clearly

indicated as common in Shakespeare’s day,

and were embedded in folklore. All ten plants

are further documented in British folklore

(Vickery, 2010). It must be remembered

that there were no folklorists per se in

Shakespeare’s day. Folklore was collected and

published by folklorists much later (Artese,

2015). Shakespeare himself “was the first great

folklorist who went to the very source of the

learning of the folk.… He was a conscientious

collector who did not invent, but saw the

inherent beauty of the popular mythology,

and then presented it to the world” (Wheatley,

1916). The most reasonable assumption, given

evidence above for widespread botanical

literacy in Shakespearean London, given

that Shakespeare’s botanical allusions were

intended to be understood by his audience,

and given that all these plants are well

documented in British rural folklore, is that

Shakespeare’s audiences and other intelligent

people of the general public were familiar with

all or most of these ten plants and capable of

recognizing them. They would have scored

highly on Bebbington’s (2005) test, certainly

better than the modern A-level students and

A-level graduates (the overwhelming majority

of whom could name only four or fewer of the

ten common wild flowers), perhaps better

than Bebbington’s biology teachers (more

than a third of whom could name only four or

fewer). And probably better than me (at only

seven)!

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

The most plausible conclusion is that by

comparison with Shakespeare’s day, botanical

literacy of the general populace has gone

downhill in modern London, and by

extension, other urban environments. Given

the proximity of Shakespearean audiences

to nature, and the lack of such proximity

in modern urban populations, this isn’t a

shocking conclusion. Common sense dictates

that rural populations will, collectively,

have a more extensive knowledge of nature

than urban populations, and you can take

your pick of academic studies that support

this conclusion. For example: Among 507

modern German adolescents, urban settings

and preferences had a negative correlation

with knowledge of trees and herbs relative

to settings and preferences closer to nature

(Lückmann and Menzel, 2014). In general,

urbanization results in lower population

exposure to natural biodiversity (Turner

et al., 2004). These processes have bearing

on a current, much discussed perspective

regarding botanical literacy, “plant blindness.”

Plant Blindness

First introduced as a pedagogical term in

education (Wandersee and Schussler, 1998),

the term “plant blindness” soon evolved to

a theory (Wandersee and Schussler, 2001).

Essentially, it’s held that current learning

about organisms is zoocentric, resulting in

diminished knowledge about plants relative

to knowledge about animals (Hershey, 2002;

Strgar, 2007; Schussler and Olzak, 2008),

although there may be deeper explanations:

“Instead of invoking zoological biases as

the root cause, there may well be a visual-

cognitive-societal basis for why plants …

are frequently ignored or undervalued”

(Wandersee and Schussler, 2001). But whether

by conspiracy, design, or social evolution, it’s

usually held that animals are more engaging

than plants.

A variety of strategies including online

learning, plant-based learning modules

and laboratory exercises (Fig. 2) have been

designed to counteract plant blindness

(Hemingway et al., 2011; Uno, 2009). The

idea is that somehow, there must be a way that

teachers can make fir trees or pampas grass

as exciting as baby pandas. For example, an

intensive survey of 1299 Viennese secondary

students (grades 5-12) strongly indicated that

medicinal plants and “stimulant herbal drugs”

(sage and belladonna are later specified, but

one can guess about some others) are of

greater interest than ornamental or edible

plants (Pany, 2014). To successfully build

on the children’s interest, plants in the first

two categories should be emphasized for

teaching: “No time should be wasted on plants

considered as uninteresting” (Pany, 2014).

This is not great news for agronomists wanting

to reach out to young urban students, but it

probably accurately reflects views of city kids.

Unsurprisingly, the most consistent interest

across grades was in stimulants, a somewhat

problematic teaching vehicle.

Figure 2. Students, well-recovered from plant

blindness, inspect one of their chlorophyllous friends

(from Washington State University Department of

Plant Pathology, http://plantpath.wsu.edu).

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Articles

There are also studies of children’s knowledge

of animals (e.g., Balmford et al., 2002;

Genovart et al., 2013; Westervelt, 1984).

Moreover, historical folklore collected in

broad or restricted locales at specified dates

can be examined for ethnozoological or

ethnobotanical relevance. But comparisons

with contemporary knowledge about animals

seem even more fraught with difficulty than

the comparison above. I know of no published

source enabling comparison of historical

ethnozoological knowledge with that of

contemporary knowledge in a specific locale,

analogous to use of Shakespeare in making

comparison to Bebbington (2005). Based on

experience, I assert that urban children are

more likely to have diminished knowledge of

animals (as well as plants) relative to children

who have grown up experiencing the zoobiota

of farms, fields, and forests, an assertion

commensurate with Lückmann and Menzel

(2014) and Turner et al. (2004). Accordingly,

a very legitimate hypothesis is that separation

from nature and agriculture—“nature

deficit disorder” (Louv, 2008)—is the factor

primarily responsible for plant blindness.

Unsurprisingly, the connection between

nature deficit disorder and plant blindness is

explored in education literature (e.g., Frisch et al.,

2010).

Electronic Media

The closest most kids get to genuine

enthusiasm for botany is the video game Plants

vs. Zombies (Popcap Games, Seattle). (If you

don’t know what this is, kids will think you’re

mentally deficient.) You may have noticed

that despite the attraction of children to video

games, there is virtually no deployment of

analogously colorful, fast-paced, interactive

gaming for legitimate learning in chemistry,

biology, history, etc. Admittedly, there are a

few tentative steps, e.g., Klopfer et al. (2012),

on a game with cartoon characters and

competition for understanding weather data,

or see Sadler et al. (2013) on a “game-based

curriculum” in high school biology. Typical

is Herrero et al. (2014), who advance claims

that playing the commercial videogame Spore

(Electronic Arts, Redwood City, California)

promotes understanding of biological

evolution.

It is conceivable that video games could,

instead of constituting a distraction from

nature, actually teach serious botany. Xylem

transport could be illustrated in a manner

similar to our own innards in Fantastic Voyage

(1966), but of course faster-paced. Sort of like

Harvard University’s and XVIVO’s Inner Life

of the Cell series, (e.g., 2006 www.xvivo.net/

animation/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/; 2013

www.xvivo.net/animation/harvard-protein-

packing/) but with elements of competition.

Of course, there has to be funding. And

something in the game has to explode. If this

can be done, there is a chance that significant

numbers of the younger set will voluntarily

use technology to actually look at living plants.

Some might even want to become botanists.

Conclusions

The disconnect between modern urban life

and nature (including agriculture) seems

ubiquitous and persistent, resulting not

only in “plant blindness” but in a broader

“nature deficit disorder.” The inability of a

contemporary urban population to recognize

common wildflowers familiar to a much

earlier urban population of the same locale

is a symptom of this disconnect, as is the

gap between rural and urban populations

in familiarity with products of nature. Thus

far, electronic media beloved of urban youth

represent a distraction from nature, but also

represent a potential venue to restore interest

in the world of nature and agriculture.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Lori Carris and Sian

Ritchie for constructive harassment on the

manuscript.

Literature Cited

Allen, D. E., and G. Hatfield. 2004. Medicinal

Plants in Folk Tradition: An Ethnobotany of Brit-

ain & Ireland. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Archer, J. E., R. M. Turley, and H. Thomas. 2012.

The autumn king, remembering the land in King

Lear. Shakespeare Quarterly 63: 518-543.

Artese, C. 2015. Shakespeare’s Folktale Sources.

University of Delaware Press, Newark.

Balmford, A., T. Coulson, and J. Taylor. 2002.

Why conservationists should heed Pokémon. Sci-

ence 295: 2367.

Bebbington, A. 2005. The ability of A-level stu-

dents to name plants. Journal of Biological Edu-

cation 39: 63-67.

Beith, M. 1995. Healing Threads: Traditional

Medicines of the Highlands and Islands. Birlinn,

Edinburgh.

Clarke, C. and M. L. Clarke (eds). 1864. Cassell’s

Illustrated Shakespeare: The Plays of Shake-

speare Vol. III. Tragedies. Cassell, Petter, and

Galpin. London.

Clayton, N. 2003. Weeds, people and contested

places. Environment and History 9: 301-331.

Cook, P. 1940. William Shakespeare, botanist.

Shakespeare Association Bulletin 15: 149-165.

Darbyshire, S. J., R. Hoeg, and J. Haver-

kort. 1999. The biology of Canadian weeds.

111. Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. Cana-

dian Journal of Plant Science 79: 671–682.

Drury, S. 1985. Herbal remedies for livestock

in seventeenth and eighteenth century England:

Some examples. Folklore 96: 243-247.

Dugan, F. M. 2015. Kitchen witches: Facts, folk-

lore, and fakelore on the transfiguration of the

herb-women, pp. 101-121 in: Hidden Histories

and Ancient Mysteries of Witches, Plants, and

Fungi. APS Press, St. Paul.

Ellacombe, H. N. 1884. The Plant-Lore and Gar-

den-Craft of Shakespeare, 2nd ed. W. Satchel &

Co., London.

Elton, C. I. 1904. William Shakespeare: His Fam-

ily and Friends. E.P. Dutton & Co., New York.

Frisch, J. K., M. M. Unwin, and G. W. Saunders.

2010. Name that plant! Overcoming plant blind-

ness and developing a sense of place using science

and environmental education, pp. 143-157 in: The

Inclusion of Environmental Education in Science

Teacher Education, A.M. Bodin, B.S. Klein and

S. Weaver (eds), Springer, New York.

Genovart, M., G. Tavecchia, J. J. Enseñat, and P.

Laiolo. 2013. Holding up a mirror to the society:

Children recognize exotic species much more

than local ones. Biological Conservation 159:

484–489.

Grieve, M. 1931. A Modern Herbal (2 volumes).

Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York. 902 pp.

Grindon, L.H. 1883. The Shakespeare Flora: A

guide to all the principal passages in which men-

tion is made of Trees, Plants, Flowers, and Vege-

table Productions. Palmer & Howe, Manchester.

Hemingway, C., W. Dahl, C. Hauffler, and C.

Stuessy. 2011. Building botanical literacy. Sci-

ence 331: 1535-1536.

Herrero, D., H. del Castillo, N. Monjelat, A. B.

García-Varela, M. Checa and P. Gómez. 2014.

Evolution and natural selection: learning by play-

ing and reflecting. New Approaches in Education-

al Research 3: 26-33.

Hershey, D. R. 2002. Plant blindness: “We have

met the enemy and he is us.” Plant Science Bulle-

tin

48(3): 78–85.

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Klopfer, E., J. Sheldon, J. Perry, and V. H. H.

Chent. 2012. Ubiquitous games for learning

(UbiqGames): Weatherlings, a worked example.

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28: 465–

476.

Lamb, M. E. 2007. The Popular Culture of Shake-

speare, Spenser and Jonson. Routledge, New York.

Lever, J. W. 1952. Three notes on Shakespeare’s

plants. Review of English Studies 3: 117-129.

Louv, R. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving

Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Al-

gonquin, New York.

Lückmann, K., and S. Menzel. 2014. Herbs vs.

trees: Influences on teenager’s knowledge of plant

species. Journal of Biological Education 48: 80-90.

Pany, P. 2014. Students’ interest in useful plants:

A potential key to counteract plant blindness.

Plant Science Bulletin 60: 18-25.

Porter, S. 2009. Shakespeare’s London: Everyday

Life in London, 1580-1616. Amberley, The Hill,

Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Rydén, M. 1978. Shakespearean Plant Names:

Identifications and Interpretation. Acta Universi-

tatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm.

Sadler, T. D., W. L. Romine, P. E. Stuart, and D.

Merle-Johson. 2013. Game-based curricula in bi-

ology classes: Differential effects among varying

academic levels. Journal of

Research in Science

and Teaching 50: 479-499.

Savage, F. G. 1923. Shakespeare’s Flora &

Folklore: Old-time Customs, Natural Histo-

ry and uses of nearly two hundred Flowers,

Fruits, Herbs, Nuts, Plants, Shrubs, Trees,

Vegetables, etc. mentioned in the Plays and

Poems. Shakespeare Press, Stratford-on-Avon.

Schussler, E.E., and L.A. Olzak. 2008. It’s not

easy being green: student recall of plant and an-

imal images. Journal of Biological Education

42:112-119.

Simpson, J. 1995. “The Weird Sisters Wander-

ing”: Burlesque witchery in Montgomerie’s Fly-

ting. Folklore 106: 9-20.

Strgar, J. 2007. Increasing the interest of students

in plants. Journal of Biological Education 42: 19-23.

Tabor, E. 1970. Plant poisons in Shakespeare.

Economic Botany 24: 81-94.

Thiselton Dyer, T. F. 1884. Folk-Lore of Shake-

speare. Harper & Brothers, New York.

Thomas, V., and N. Faircloth. 2014. Shakespeare’s

Plants and Gardens. Bloomsbury, London.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1978. The city: Its distance from na-

ture. Geographical Review 68: 1-12.

Turner, W. R., T. Nakamura, and M. Dinetti.

2004. Global urbanization and the separation of

humans from nature. Bioscience 54: 585-590.

Uno, G. E. 2009. Botanical literacy: What and

how should students learn about plants? Ameri-

can Journal of Botany 96: 1753-1759.

Vickery, R. 2010. Garland’s, Conkers and Moth-

er-Die: British and Irish Plant Lore. Continuum,

London.

Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 1998. A

model of plant blindness. 3rd Annual Associates

Meeting of the 15˚ Laboratory, Louisiana State

University, Baton Rouge.

Wandersee, J. H., and E. E. Schussler. 2001. To-

ward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science

Bulletin 47: 2-9.

Westervelt, M. O. 1984. A provocative look at

young people’s perceptions of animals. Chil-

dren’s Environments Quarterly 1: 4-7.

Wheatley, H. B. 1916. The folklore of Shake-

speare. Folklore 27: 378-407.

Willes, M. 2015. A Shakespearean Botanical.

Bodleian Library, Oxford.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

By Catrina Adams,

Education Director

BSA Science Education News and Notes is a

quarterly update about the BSA’s education

efforts and the broader education scene. We

invite you to submit news items or ideas for

future features. Contact Catrina Adams, Ed-

ucation Director, at cadams@botany.org.

USA Science & Engineering Festival:

“Plants Move, Plants Matter”

Booth Draws Thousands of Visitors

This April, BSA joined the U.S. Botanic

Garden, the American Society for Plant

Biologists, the Donald Danforth Plant Science

Center, Society for Economic Botany, and

Rutgers University in a large, five-part, 600

square foot “Plant Presence” booth at the USA

Science and Engineering festival (USASEF).

Over the course of three days, over 365,000

people attended the festival, and thousands

stopped by the plants booth to explore hands-

on activities and demonstrations around

seeds, flowers, roots, stems, and leaves.

The BSA “leaf” part of the booth included

a working model of a Venus flytrap with

trigger hairs created by Rutgers Mechanical

Engineering undergraduate students Adam

Burrous and Valeria Saro-Cortes (Figure 1),

a leaf adaptation origami game developed by

Jennifer Blake Mahmud (Rutgers) and Catrina

Adams (Figure 2), and a chloroplast movement

“leaf print” demonstration implemented with

help from Holly Gorton (St. Mary’s College

of Maryland) and Terry Woodford Thomas

(Donald Danforth Plant Science Center).

Visitors loved seeing our model Venus flytrap

and learning more about its sophisticated

triggering mechanism, as well as taking a

closer look at the live Venus flytrap on display,

courtesy of the U.S. Botanic Garden. The

origami game was very popular with upper

elementary and middle school students,

and many teachers took full sets to use in

their classrooms. The leaf print and video of

chloroplast movement fascinated many by

showing a kind of plant movement of which

few were aware.

We could not have pulled off the event without

help from many D.C. area volunteers. Thanks

to Monica Carlsen, Betsy Collins, Greg Perrier,

Caroline Puente, Jonathan Singer, and Martha

Weiss for your help at the event!

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Science Education

The activities that were developed and piloted

at USASEF will be added to U.S. Botanic

Garden programming, and the model Venus

flytrap will continue to be used at the U.S.

Botanic Garden.

Botany Booth in a Box

Outreach Competition

We are looking forward to the first BSA

outreach competition at this year’s Botany

Conference in Savannah. We had over 20

submissions and are looking forward to live

demonstrations by the semifinalists during the

opening reception in the exhibit hall this year.

If you will attend this year’s annual meeting,

please join us to see what outreach activities

your colleagues have developed, and cast your

votes for this year’s winners!

PlantingScience Seeking

100 New Mentors for Fall

2016 as Improved Website

Launched

PlantingScience, our online science mentoring

program, is looking for 100 new scientist

mentors to join the program to work with

middle- and high-school students on student-

designed projects around eight themes in plant

biology, from seed germination to Arabidopsis

genetics. We are in the process of launching a

new and improved PlantingScience website,

http://dig.plantingscience.org, which has a

much bigger capacity to serve more teachers

and students each year.

We are very excited to finally be growing our

capacity to help more students, but it means

that we now have an increased demand for

scientist mentors to work with those students.

Mentoring a team or two takes only about

an hour a week, can be done from anywhere

with an internet connection, and is a great

way to connect with middle- and high-school

students to share your passion for plants and

science. If you have not mentored before,

please consider giving it a try this fall. If you

have been mentoring already, please share this

opportunity with your colleagues! Sign up to

be notified when registration opens on the

new website at: https://dig.plantingscience.

org/community/joinplantingscience/

becomeamentor.

For graduate students and post-docs, we also

offer an opportunity to serve as a Master Plant

Science Team (MPST) member. Members

of this team serve in enhanced roles, both

mentoring and serving as liaisons between

a teacher and his or her other mentors. In

exchange for a larger role, we offer MPST

members a free BSA membership and 50%

off meeting registration for the following year.

The deadline for MPST applications is August

8, 2016.

Figure 1. Rutgers mechanical engineering un-

dergraduate student Adam Burrous shows vis-

itors how trigger hairs work using the working

Venus flytrap model that he and Valeria Saro-

Cortes built as their senior capstone project

PSB 62 (2) 2016

Science Education

Digging Deeper Together:

Collaborative Teacher/Sci-

entist Professional Develop-

ment Launches this Summer

We are looking forward to two exciting

weeks of professional development this

summer in Colorado Springs, CO. As part

of a collaborative NSF grant, we are bringing

together 34 high-school teachers and 20 early-

career scientist “PlantingScience Fellows” to

work collaboratively over the summer and into

the fall to improve students’ PlantingScience

projects and the way students think about

photosynthesis, plants, and science and what

it means to be a plant scientist. This team

will be working closely together during the

fall PlantingScience session, co-mentoring

students through their PlantingScience

projects.

Congratulations to this year’s PlantingScience

Fellows: Steven Callen, Julia Chapman, Kevin

Dorn, Chloe Drummond, Kate Eisen, Kate

Eisen, Nathanial Frein, Ben Gahagen, Julie

Herman, Kevyn Juneau, Kelly Ksiazek, Jacob

Landis, Jesse Mayer, Alex Pilote, Jerald Pinson,

Devesh Shukla, Andries Temme, Amanda

Tracey, Erika Valek, Catherine Vrentas, and

Martha Zwonitzer. Thanks also to scientist

mentor leaders Susan Bush and Eric Jones,

and teacher leaders Kim Parfitt and Kara

Butterworth.

DON’T MISS

BOTANY 2016:

CELEBRATING OUR HISTORY,

CONSERVING OUR FUTURE

http://botanyconference.org/

An exciting number of education,

outreach and training offerings for

you to consider:

Workshops on:

• Making a Visual Key: A Lab Exercise

with Practical Consequences
• Planting Inquiry in Science Class-

rooms
• Using Visual Learning to Improve

Comprehension
• Web-based Retrieval Practice as a

Self-Directed Study Tool for Students

in Botany and Plant Taxonomy

Symposium “The Importance of

Communicating Science”

Professional Development workshops

for students:

• Botanical Career Panel
• Applying to Graduate School: Tips

for Success
• We are All Plumbers Now: Toolbox-

es for Building Unconventional STEM

Career Pipelines

Don’t miss the Teaching Section

presentations and posters, and the

PlantingScience mixer.

Check the website for updates and

schedule.

STUDENT SECTION

By Angela McDonnell and Becky

Povilus, BSA Student Representatives

The BOTANY conference is quickly

approaching! With 6 days of lectures, field

trips, workshops, socials, and more, where

does one start and how can you get the most

out of your experience? Check out our tips

and links below for some ideas!

Travel and Lodging

Travel Grants. Although it is too late to apply

for this year, you can take advantage of the many

travel grants next year. Keep these on your radar

next spring! You can find them online at http://

botany.org, then click Awards, scroll to

Travel awards for students, then a list will pop up

with links to each of the following:

• PLANTS grants are funded by NSF and BSA

to bring talented and diverse undergraduates

to the meeting.

• Triarch Botanical Images Awards provide

acknowledgement and travel support to BSA

meetings for outstanding student work in the

area of creating botanical digital images.

• Section Awards are worth checking out.

There are many to choose from, so be sure to

check with your sections!

• Vernon I. Cheadle Awards are generally giv-

en to students who are presenting in a session

sponsored by the Developmental and Struc-

tural Section

Find a Roommate. Split your hotel costs

by sharing a room with a roommate! Take

advantage of the 2016 BOTANY Housing

Partner Finder: http://images.botany.org/

roommate.shtml. Besides saving you $$$, it

can be a great way to connect with your peers

and make new friends and contacts.

Getting the Most out of

BOTANY 2016: A Guide for Students

PSB 62 (1) 2016

Student Section

Volunteer at the Conference. Did you

know that you can earn back your early

registration fee by volunteering your time

at the conference? The conference couldn’t

happen without the help of students to run the

registration booth, help at ticket events, and

make sure that sessions run smoothly. These

opportunities are limited each year and are

actually unavailable for BOTANY 2016, but

keep this in mind next spring for next year’s

conference!

Highlights for Students

Workshops: There are so many to choose

from! Two are specifically aimed at students:

• “Applying to Graduate School: Tips for

Success,” led by Anna Monfils, is a panel dis-

cussion designed to introduce undergradu-

ate students to the specific requirements for

applying to graduate programs in plant biol-

ogy. (Free)

• “Crafting an Effective Elevator Speech and

Communicating Broader Impacts of your

Work,” led by your friendly neighborhood

BSA student reps. The workshop features

tips from Doug Soltis, and time with your

peers to help you create an elevator speech

of your own, just in time for use during the

conference. ($10)

Student Luncheon: A Focus on Careers

in Botany. What can you do with a degree

in botany? Come find out at the Student

Luncheon! Pam Diggle will speak about

publishing, and then you’ll get a chance to talk

to representatives from various career paths

in a “speed-dating” format. You’ll even get a

delicious catered lunch! ($5)

Botanical Career Panel. Organized by Susan

Pell from the US Botanic Garden, this panel

will be held Monday afternoon and includes

professionals with botanical degrees who

will discuss their professional experiences

and answer participants’ questions. The

moderator will facilitate an open discussion

designed to address opportunities in the post-

undergraduate and post-graduate job markets.

(Free)

Poster Session. Whether you are presenting

your own work or just there to see what

people are working on, this is a great time to

talk science, learn about cutting-edge plant

research, and meet people! Poster sessions will

happen on August 1 and 2. Be sure to check out

a detailed schedule on the web at http://2016.

botanyconference.org/engine/search/ or via

the Botany Conference App, which will be

available soon! (Free)

Celebrating 10 years of BSA Student Reps:

Come Meet your Reps! Time flies—it’s already

been 10 years since the first BSA student reps

were appointed as board members to help the

Society meet the needs of student members.

Come meet the past and present reps, and

learn about what we do for the society… and

why you might want to become one! We’ll be

meeting 1 hour before the Student Social and

Networking Event (see below), at the Moon

River Brewing Company, which is walking

distance from the conference center at 21 W

Bay St, Savannah, GA 31401. (Free)

Student Social and Networking Event. A

favorite event for many! This year we’ll be

at the Moon River Brewing Company…

reportedly one of the most haunted buildings

in Savannah! Come catch up with old friends

and meet new ones while enjoying craft brews,

munchies, and a gorgeous beer garden. It’s easy

to add a ticket for this event (which includes a

drink ticket!) to your conference registration:

Find a link to register for the conference at

2016.botanyconference.org, and click “Modify

Registration.” A special thanks to our sponsor,

PSB 62 (1) 2016

Student Section

International Journal of Plant Sciences, for

making this event possible! ($5)

Field trips. Savannah has a rich history and

diverse local ecosystems, and you can explore

it first-hand with local experts! This year, 11

different field trips are being offered; you can

choose from tours of history sites, kayak trips,

and hiking trails that showcase the flora and

fauna. Also be sure to check out the Botany

in Action trip—you can help give a beloved

urban park some TLC! (cost varies by field trip)

A special note about field trips and student

members of the BSA Systematics Section: Did

you know that ASPT and/or BSA Systematics

Section members are eligible for field trip

grants? Send Jim Cohen an e-mail message

(jcohen@kettering.edu) after you register

for the field trip. Include your name, e-mail

address, affiliation, mailing address, whether

you are an ASPT or BSA Systematics Section

member, and the field trip title. You could be

reimbursed for up to $100!

For most ticketed events, it’s not too late to

register! Tickets for these events are easy to

add to your conference registration: Find the

link to register for the conference on the web

at botanyconference.org, and click “Modify

Registration.”

The BOTANY Conference App!

Schedule Planner. With so much going on

during the conference, planning your days

can be a challenge. The online BOTANY

Conference App lets you browse talks and

events and then add the ones you want to a

schedule that you can check online, so you can

stay on track. BSA members can download the

app at https://dl.doubledutch.me/download.

aspx?appId=a9832a5e-fd6a-4fee-9c76-

fde1f8e41ba3&region=us.

Share your BOTANY experience! Social media

allows you to share your experiences at the

conference, and the number of tweets, posts,

likes, and shares are growing every year. The

social media aspect lets you share your photos

and thoughts throughout the conference,

and it can be a way to share your work and

increase your visibility. It’s a great way to see

what is going on and keep tabs on all your

conference buddies! Use the #BOTANY2016

hashtag when discussing the conference!

100

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Linnean Society of London

Meeting at the

Arnold Arboretum

On May 6-8, 2016, 60 Fellows of the Linnean

Society met at the Arnold Arboretum for a

historic meeting of the Linnean Society—

the first in North America since its founding

in 1788. Ned Friedman, Director of the

Arboretum, together with Linnean Society

Past-President Dianne Edwards, planned

the meeting as an opportunity for American

members to participate in a “Burlington

House” type of meeting with scientific

papers and an induction of new Fellows

(who ordinarily must travel to the annual

Anniversary Meeting in London to formalize

their election by signing the Fellows roll).

The botany was well represented with papers

presented by: BSA Corresponding Member

Diane Edwards, Ned Friedman, Robin

Hopkins, Sandy Knapp, Jan Salick, Dennis

Stevenson, and Marsh Sundberg. Other

Fellows in attendance, with BSA connections,

included: Peter Crane, Pamela Diggle, Vicki

Funk, Cynthia Jones, Ed Schneider, Lena

Struwe, Barry Tomlinson, and Joe Williams.

BSA Member

Erika Edwards Receives

Presidential Early Career

Award

Erika Edwards, associate professor of ecology

and evolutionary biology at Brown University,

was awarded the Presidential Early Career

Award for Scientists and Engineers. Edwards

was among 105 honorees who received this,

the U.S. government’s highest award for

engineers and scientists in the early stages

of their independent research careers, at the

White House in May.

The National Science Foundation nominated

Dr. Edwards for her “innovative research

[Edwards headshot]

Erika Edwards
Image: Casey Dunn, Brown University

PSB 62 (2) 2016

101

Announcements

leading to exciting breakthroughs in

understanding the drivers of plant

evolutionary innovation, and particularly the

evolution of plant form and photosynthesis

systems, and for engaging public outreach on

plant biology.”

“What makes this so special for me is that we

do not work on human health, or medicine...

we are not engineers; we are botanists,”

Edwards said in a press release from Brown

University. “My lab is an evolutionary

biology lab, and our primary focus is on

understanding how different plant species

are related to one another, and how they have

adapted to climate change and the emergence

of new environments over deep evolutionary

time. It is wonderful to have this type of

science recognized as important for humanity

and relevant to our current challenges. We

have a lot to learn from history, and that

certainly includes natural history - nature is

full of inspiring and elegant solutions to big

problems.”

President Barack Obama greets Erika Edwards

at the White House.

Marshall Sundberg Named

2016 Roe R. Cross

Distinguished Professor

Long-time BSA member Marshall

Sundberg was named the 2016 Roe R.

Cross Distinguished Professor at Emporia

State University. This award, established

in 1979 to honor the ESU professor who

“best demonstrates teaching excellence,

professional activities, fostering of

intellectual atmosphere, service to the

university outside the classroom and status

as a student mentor” is the highest teaching

award given by the University.

Taylor & Francis boasts a growing, wide-ranging and high calibre journals portfolio in Plant Sciences. Our journals
are edited by some of the most prominent academics in their fields. We are partnered with an array of the world’s
leading societies, such as the Arboricultural Association, Botanical Society of Scotland, British Phycological
Society, Canadian Phytopathological Society, Forest Products Society, International Society for Diatom Research,
Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Mycological Society of China, Nordic Forest Cooperation
Committee, Royal Society of New Zealand, Société Botanique de France and the Università degli Studi di Firenze,
to publish cutting-edge, high quality research across the spectrum of Plant Sciences.Taylor & Francis is at the
forefront of the publishing landscape for researchers who seek to further their disciplines with their work.

Botany and

Plant Sciences

Journals from Taylor & Francis

FREE

ACCESS

Discover and order

Agricultural Science at

www.crcpress.com

www.tandfonline.com

Don’t miss out!

Visit the journals’ homepages at

www.tandfonline.com

to:

Submit your research

Discover most read, most cited and free articles

Access the journals’ latest news and offers

Purchase online access to back issues

View the full Editorial Board

Recommend the journal to your library

The Botany and Plant Sciences portfolio includes:

Discover our Botany and Plant Sciences portfolio

explore.tandfonline.com/content/est/plant

Become a fan on Facebook

www.facebook.com/tandfplantsciences

www.tandfonline.com/eupdates

www.twitter.com/tandfplant

The Botany and Plant Sciences portfolio includes:

lant E

colog

y & D

ersity

Volume

8 N

umbers

5–6 O

ctober–December

2015

Plant Ecology & Diversity

Volume 8 Numbers 5–6 October–December 2015

Monographs in Long Term High Mountain Ecological Research - the Niwot Ridge
Long Term Ecological Research Site, 1995–2015

Contents

Monographs in Long Term High Mountain Ecological Research - the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological

Research Site, 1995–2015

Laszlo Nagy

595

An overview of research from a high elevation landscape: the Niwot Ridge, Colorado Long Term Ecological

Research programme

Mark W. Williams, Timothy R. Seastedt, William D. Bowman, Diane M. McKnight and Katharine N. Suding 597

Contrasting long-term alpine and subalpine precipitation trends in a mid-latitude North American

mountain system, Colorado Front Range, USA

Timothy G.F. Kittel, Mark W. Williams, Kurt Chowanski, Michael Hartman, Todd Ackerman, Mark Losleben

and Peter D. Blanken

607

Cryosphere: ice on Niwot Ridge and in the Green Lakes Valley, Colorado Front Range

Matthias Leopold, Gabriel Lewis, David Dethier, Nel Caine and Mark W. Williams 625

The ‘teflon basin’ myth: hydrology and hydrochemistry of a seasonally snow-covered catchment

Mark W. Williams, Eran Hood, Noah P. Molotch, Nel Caine, Rory Cowie and Fengjing Liu 639

Fluxes of energy, water, and carbon dioxide from mountain ecosystems at Niwot Ridge, Colorado

John F. Knowles, Sean P. Burns, Peter D. Blanken and Russell K. Monson 663

Winter gas exchange between the atmosphere and snow-covered soils on Niwot Ridge, Colorado, USA

Daniel Liptzin, Detlev Helmig, Steven K. Schmidt, Brian Seok and Mark W. Williams

677

Limnology of the Green Lakes Valley: phytoplankton ecology and dissolved organic matter biogeochemistry

at a long-term ecological research site

Matthew P. Miller and Diane M. McKnight

689

Plant–microbe interactions at multiple scales across a high-elevation landscape

Steven K. Schmidt, Andrew J. King, Courtney L. Meier, William D. Bowman, Emily C. Farrer, Katharine N. Suding

and Diana R. Nemergut

703

Vegetation change at high elevation: scale dependence and interactive effects on Niwot Ridge

Katharine N. Suding, Emily C. Farrer, Andrew J. King, Lara Kueppers and Marko J. Spasojevic 713

A slide down a slippery slope – alpine ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition

William D. Bowman, Diana R. Nemergut, Diane M. McKnight, Matthew P. Miller and Mark W. Williams 727

Plant community response to nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment varies across an alpine tundra

moisture gradient

Eve I. Gasarch and Timothy R. Seastedt

739

The consequences of multiple resource shifts on the productivity and composition of alpine tundra communities:

inferences from a long-term snow and nutrient manipulation experiment

Eve I. Gasarch and Timothy R. Seastedt

751

The forest–alpine ecotone: a multi-scale approach to spatial and temporal dynamics of treeline change

at Niwot Ridge

Patrick S. Bourgeron, Hope C. Humphries, Daniel Liptzin and Timothy R. Seastedt 763

Of plants and pikas: evidence for a climate-mediated decline in forage and cache quality

Sabuj Bhattacharyya and Chris Ray

781

Children’s book series and associated curricula support elementary education and outreach in water resources

Chris Ray, Diane M. McKnight, Marcie D. Bidwell, Tiffany Fourment, Colleen Flanagan Pritz and Amy H. Rinehart 795

Plant Ecology

& Diversity

Volume 8 Numbers 5–6 October–December 2015

ISSN 1755-0874

Monographs in Long Term High Mountain Ecological

Research - the Niwot Ridge Long Term Ecological

Research Site, 1995–2015

TPED_COVER_8-05-06.indd 1

25/02/16 7:12 PM

lant E

colog

y & D

ersity

Volume

8 N

umbers

5–6 O

ctober–December

2015

Plant Ecology & Diversity

Volume 8 Numbers 5–6 October–December 2015

Monographs in Long Term High Mountain Ecological Research - the Niwot Ridge

Long Term Ecological Research Site, 1995–2015