PLANT SCIENCE BULLETIN - Cms.botany

PSB 66 (3) 2020which mentions biodiversity in the last lineat the end of the fourth paragraph. An entryin Britannica follows that does not mentiondiversity. Fourth is the BSA site that mentionsmajor groups of plants. The fifth site describescareers in environmental science (https://www.environmentalscience.org/). The introductionto Botany at this latter site makes no mentionof diversity, but does include a statement Iquestioned: “Many of the top universities havebotany degrees, but there has been a decline inrecent years of students taking botany in favourof other environmental and natural sciences.”Is this true? Do many of the top universitieshave botany degrees? Has there been a declinein recent years in students taking botany?While not addressing these questions directly,surveys of course catalogs of institutionsof higher learning provide some insights.Marsh Sundberg (2004) published one suchsurvey that provides baseline data. In 2008,Sundberg revisited the same course catalogsand updated the information for a talkhe presented at Botany 2008 dex.php?func detail&aid 194).UsingtheSundberg 2008 data set as a starting place,we revisited course catalogs of the same154 institutions. We searched for BotanyDepartments or any department withBotany in its name. I assumed the numberof departments with “Botany” in the namewould be correlated with the numbers ofdepartments that award degrees in botany,with the caveat that some institutions thathad removed Botany from the name of theirdepartment could retain a botany degree.ABFigure 4. Data based on course catalogs from154 institutions of higher education. A, Percentage of institutions offering freshman levelcourses. B, Total number of courses beyondfreshman level offered in each category. Numbers of institutions included in the study: in2004, 58 research institutions, 60 comprehensive institutions, and 55 liberal arts colleges; in2020, 57 research institutions, 48 comprehensive institutions, and 49 liberal arts colleges.41% had departments with Botany in thename. By 2020, that number had dropped to12%, indicating that in fact “most of the topuniversities” no longer offer botany degrees.Even in 2004, with a few exceptions,The second issue raised on the “Environmentalonly Research Universities had BotanyScience Introduction to Botany” website wasdepartments. Of those surveyed in 2004,that there has been a decline in the numberof students enrolling in botany courses. I did177

PSB 66 (3) 2020Figure 5. Percentage of institutions offering courses in various botanical disciplines and areas ofstudent. Grey 2008, black 2020.not investigate enrollment numbers, but wewere able to record courses offered in coursecatalogs. More generally, I was interested inwhether the decline in “Botany” departmentstranslated to a decline in botanical educationat the collegiate level.Assuming thatinstitutions of higher learning update theircatalogs periodically and drop (most) coursesno longer offered, and assuming that theseinstitutions do not continue to supportcourses with low enrollments, we lookedat the percent of these 154 schools offeringcourses that were primarily focused on basicplant biology as a proxy for enrollments. Wefound that at the freshman level, there hasbeen very little change in the number of theintroductory courses focused on botanicalinstruction (Fig. 4A). The very good newsis that there also has been no decline inthe numbers of courses offered above thefreshman level (Fig. 4B). In other words, our“national aspirational capacity” for instructionin the fundamental biology of plants appearsto be as strong today as it was 16 years ago,despite the dramatic decrease in the numberof botany departments! Considering differenttypes of courses, the general distributionis roughly the same (Fig. 5), although newcourses (e.g., Plant Development or Evolutionand Diversity) have been added as others (e.g.,Morphology) have declined.Botany classes are especially importantbecause our labs satisfy many criteria forcreating excellent learning opportunities (e.g.,Nilson, 2010). They are multimodal, active,178

PSB 66 (3) 2020especially if the greenhouses are not tied toresearch. Data always help make the case toadministrators that greenhouses are criticalto basic plant biology education, but I’venever seen any multi-institutional data ongreenhouse use or support. (Please contactme if you know of any!) To address this datagap, I published a survey in the February 2020issue of the BSA’s monthly e-mail newsletter. Ialso submitted the survey to the Associationof Research and Educational GreenhouseCurators. In total, about 100 valid surveys werereturned. Although that is a fairly low returnrate, each of the valid responses was from adifferent institution. Seventy-three percent ofresponses were from institutions in the U.S. ora U.S. protectorate. Eighty percent of responseswere from public institutions, and half ofthose had more than 20,000 undergraduates.Only 10% were from respondents whodescribed their institutions as “primarilyapplied,” as opposed to “primarily basic” or“combined.” The survey results were similar soall institutions were combined. Ninety-sevenFigure 6. Botany labs provide engaged learning percent of respondents teach courses in basicplant biology, and of those, 95% viewed theopportunities.use of living plants for teaching as extremelyand engage multiple senses and incorporate important or very important.many of the skills necessary for STEMEighty-eight percent of the respondentseducation, such as graphing, data analysis,indicated that they have greenhouses that areand observation-based hypothesis testing used for teaching, outreach, or undergraduate(Fig. 6). Our labs also present plant diversity research. The modal number of plant speciesin ways that images and lectures cannot used primarily in teaching was between 50accomplish. Often not appreciated, our labs and 200 species (Fig. 7A), although a fairhave the potential for unusually high levels number of institutions use more than 200of student engagement because they include species per year. Most respondents indicatedliving material, as compared to most modern that between 100 and 500 undergraduatestudents are taught per year, although in someanimal-oriented courses.institutions the number is much higher (Fig. 7B).Providing living material comes with a fairlyhigh cost, especially if the material is provided Also relevant to the question of institutionalby greenhouses. Greenhouses are expensive support for greenhouses is, who paid for theirto build and to maintain, and we periodically construction? Greenhouse sizes are generallyhear examples of universities that make the between 1000 and 10,000 square feet (Fig. 7C),decision not to continue to support them, Construction was funded most commonlyby the educational institution, or by some179

PSB 66 (3) 2020Figure 7. Results from Survey of Greenhouse Use and Support. A, Numbers of plant species fromgreenhouses and outdoor space used for teaching. B, Number of undergrads using living materials. C, Size of greenhouses used for undergraduate teaching or research. D, Categories of fundingsources for greenhouse construction. E, Categories of plant care personnel. F, Source of salary forplant care personnel.combination of funding sources (Fig. 7D).Most respondents indicated that greenhousesare staffed by a paid staff member, as well asstudents, and of those institutions with paidstaff, most are funded by the institution (Fig.7E, F). This represents significant financialinvestment in greenhouses that supportundergraduate teaching and research.Perhaps the most interesting finding of thestudy was that 61% of teaching and 48% ofresearch greenhouses are more than 20 yearsold, with a significant proportion of those olderthan 30 years (Fig. 8). Traditional greenhouseshave a life span of about 30 years, so if thesedata are nationally representative, more than50% of greenhouses used for teaching shouldbe replaced in the next 20 years. Given thecurrent cost of constructing greenhouses anddeclining state support for public institutionsof higher learning, the current age of morethan half of the greenhouses used nationallyfor teaching presents a serious threat to ourability to continue to provide immersivelearning experiences in basic plant biology,a threat I perceive as especially dire giventhe critical role of plants in mediating Earth’sresponse to climate change.180

PSB 66 (3) 2020Figure 8. Ages of greenhouses used for undergraduate teaching and research (grey) and research only (black).Perhaps the single most important thing we cando now is to recognize this looming threat andform a collective voice. In addition to makingour federal agencies aware of this potentialnational decline in our ability to provide highquality education in basic botanical education,there are several possible actions those of uscurrently facing greenhouse replacementsare familiar with: inviting governmentalrepresentatives to view the greenhouses andhow they are used, educating administrationson the critical role of plant biology relative tosustainability and climate change, aligningour greenhouses with the strategic plans ofthe universities, and identifying opportunitiesto involve the greenhouses in campus-wideinitiatives.In addition to these approaches, we also canand should emphasize to administrators theimportant role of plant

departments that award degrees in botany, with the caveat that some institutions that had removed Botany from the name of their department could retain a botany degree. Even in 2004, with a few exceptions, only Research Universities had Botany departments. Of those surveyed in 2004, 41%