Plant Science Bulletin

The Plant Science Bulletin (Print: ISSN 0032-0919, Electronic: ISSN 1537-9752) is an informal communication published four times a year, with information on upcoming meetings, courses, field trips, news of colleagues, new books, and professional opportunities. It provides a means of advertising items or materials wanted. It also serves as a forum for circulating BSA committee reports, for distributing innovative teaching approaches and methods, and for discussing issues of concern to Society members such as environmental policy and educational funding.

54-4 AS A PDF | SEARCH ALL ISSUES | ANNOUNCEMENTS | CAREER OPPORTUNITIES | LAST ISSUE - WINTER, 2008

SPRING 2009

Table of Contents

   » Growing SEEDS of Sustainability at UBC
Announcements:
    In Memoriam
       » Dr. Steven Clemants 1954-2008
Other News
    Books Reviewed
    Books Received for Review

Growing SEEDS of Sustainability at UBC

This article is based on an educational workshop, entitled “Growing Sustainability through Undergraduate and Graduate Research-UBC Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS)”, contributed/presented by Carolina Chanis, Davis Chiu, Kelly Coulson, David Grigg, Brenda Sawada and Santokh Singh at the BOTANY 2008 conference on July 27th, 2008 in Vancouver, Canada.

On the west coast of Canada, individuals, businesses, and institutions are scrambling to get green. At the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, British Columbia, the SEEDS (Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies) Program is already in its eighth year, promoting sustainability with students, faculty, and staff on campus. SEEDS brings together these groups in an academic setting, imagining and implementing projects to promote a more socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable campus.

Sustainability at UBC: A Historical Perspective
While SEEDS is the first academic program of its kind in Western Canada, UBC’s commitment to sustainability did not begin at its inception. In fact, UBC has been a leader in sustainable issues in a variety of ways. In 1990, UBC, with over a hundred other universities, signed the Talloires Declaration, an official statement adopted by university administrations of commitment to sustainability issues on campus. As well as encouraging individuals – staff, students, and faculty – to consider sustainable issues in all facets of their work, UBC also continued to develop programs and initiatives to keep sustainable issues at the forefront of life on campus. UBC became Canada’s first university to adopt a sustainable development policy in 1997, and in 1998, continued to lead the country in green issues by opening the doors of Canada’s first on-campus Sustainability Office. These developments provided both a rich context and a demand for a program that would bring together students, staff, and faculty to work toward sustainability on campus. SEEDS was born, and since its beginning in 2001, UBC has become Canada’s leading university in sustainable issues, with sustainability consultation processes involving 20 faculties, 89 specific targets for sustainability, and over 300 sustainability-related courses.

An Introduction to the SEEDS Program
UBC’s “Policy on Sustainable Development,” or “Policy 5,” when adopted in 1997, called for the establishment of a Sustainability Advisory Committee, consisting of faculty, students, and staff. This committee advised on the development of programs and initiatives to reach the goals set out by Policy 5, including a program to focus on campus sustainability. Out of this goal, the SEEDS program was developed.

The SEEDS program invites campus staff, faculty, and students to share their ideas for sustainable improvements in their area of work or study. Staff members supply the ideas and students research solutions with the help of a faculty advisor. The benefits are multitudinous: students gain credit for their work, while gaining experience with directed studies, and feeling that they are making a personal contribution to campus life; faculty become involved in sustainable issues often relating to other faculties or departments; staff are able to see their ideas implemented, often improving their own jobs or workplaces; and the university community benefits from cost-effective solutions that create a more sustainable UBC campus.

The primary goal of the SEEDS program is to bring together and build relationships between members of the university community who would normally not find themselves sitting around the same table, working toward a common goal. Through working together, and learning from each other, SEEDS participants not only help develop campus sustainability, but also improve research, applied learning and project development skills. SEEDS encourages its participants to continue to be involved with on-campus sustainability after their projects are completed, and to become ambassadors of sustainability in the university community.

SEEDS Projects
The first SEEDS project, completed in the first year of the program, brought together a landscape architect and a master’s student in the School of Community and Regional Planning, to map the network of heritage sites that are situated all through the campus landscape. This project, “Place-making at UBC: Planning a Heritage Trail,” set the stage for relating sustainability to place – the buildings, landscape and plant resources, infrastructure, and art on campus. Since this inaugural project, SEEDS has facilitated numerous projects in a wide variety of faculties, from engineering to sciences to arts, for example, a plan for can and bottle collection, a sociological analysis of graffiti, and research on local food.

The development of a stormwater management stream on campus has also served as the basis for many SEEDS projects: Sauder School of Business students provided a cost-benefit analysis, a Biological Engineering student researched the feasibility of using the stream as a fish habitat, and a Civil Engineering student laid the foundations for the detailed design of the stream itself. Because the stormwater management system has yet to be built, the options for future SEEDS projects are numerous.

SEEDS has also facilitated a number of botany-related projects. Some examples of such projects are: UBC Farm: Plans for Sustainable Organic Growth; The Effectiveness of An Infra-red Weeder Applied at Varying Speeds and Time Intervals in Controlling Weeds at Two Sites on the UBC Campus; Macmillan Precinct Oak Management Plan; Roundup at UBC: The Road to a Pesticide Free Campus at UBC, and Examination of Quercus rurba Along Main Mall at the University of British Columbia. Recently, a number of Botany students have been working on a SEEDS project involving gas exchange measurements in trees and shrubs growing on Sustainability Street in University of British Columbia.

This year, a panel of UBC faculty, staff and students presented an overview of the SEEDS program as a workshop, entitled “Growing Sustainability through Undergraduate and Graduate Research-UBC Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS)” at the BOTANY 2008 conference held at UBC. SEEDS student Carolina Chanis recently presented the details of her project on physiology and sustainability of ferns. Through the SEEDS program, she was able to use her knowledge and interest in both plant science and sustainability to monitor ferns on UBC’s Sustainability Street for photosynthesis and transpiration rates, as well as conduct hormone and red/blue light experiments on the plants. SEEDS connected her with faculty and staff advisors who helped facilitate the project, but also allowed her unprecedented freedoms in learning, highly valued and unusual in undergraduate-level courses.

Contributions to Learning
The SEEDS program significantly contributes to the education of students, and to the ongoing experiences of faculty and staff, however its influence stretches beyond those directly involved with the program. The analyses conducted by students for SEEDS add to the rich body of research on sustainability at UBC. Research by SEEDS students has led to 20% biodiesel usage in Plant Operations vehicles, UBC as a pesticide-free campus, the development of seven new gardens, and sustainable seafood consumption by UBC Food Services. SEEDS participants are given a unique opportunity in their studies to not only conduct research on sustainability, but to actually put their ideas into action, for the benefit of the university community as a whole. All projects are available for public viewing on the SEEDS website <www.sustain.ubc.ca/seeds> so that research can be shared within both the UBC and the greater community, and drawn upon for future sustainability efforts.

As well as contributing to research efforts, SEEDS has also spread its influence to the classroom. Projects have been adapted from the original model of a student, faculty member, and staff-person involved in a student directed studies course, to fit within the teaching curriculum. In the 2007-8 school year alone, two departments incorporated SEEDS into entire undergraduate courses. A Food Systems project assessing food services on campus allowed 210 fourth-year students, five teaching assistants, and 22 staff members to participate in campus sustainability. In Civil Engineering, 117 second-year students under the direction of four instructors and three staff members collected data first-hand in order to create a water balance model for South Campus. SEEDS projects in the classroom provide students with a focus their learning, through local, sustainable, relevant projects rather than abstract examples.

Economic Savings to the University
UBC’s leadership in sustainability stems from a commitment to creating unique opportunities for students, faculty, and staff to participate in programs like SEEDS, which provide the opportunity for environmental, social, and economic innovation throughout the university. Continuing to advance sustainability at UBC has had positive impact on all levels. The Sustainability Office website <www.sustain.ubc.ca> tracks resources saved at UBC’s Vancouver campus in real-time, so viewers can watch the numbers increase with each passing second. As of September 2008, savings to UBC include: nearly 200 million sheets of printing paper, almost 200 million kWh of electricity, over 20 billion liters of water, nearly 80,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases reduced, and over 33 million dollars. The SEEDS program specifically, has saved the university untold resources in the forms of pesticides and unsustainable fuels and food. SEEDS research has also lead to an increase in composting, thereby reducing the amount of garbage produced on campus. In addition, SEEDS has saved the university more than $187,000 in consulting fees between 2003 and Spring 2008.

Perspectives of SEEDS Participants
Projects facilitated by the SEEDS department have numerous benefits, including research-based and economic, for the UBC community, but they also truly enrich the lives and learning of those directly involved. Below are statements from UBC students, staff, and faculty, who have participated in the SEEDS program.

Feedback from Students:
“The SEEDS program for me was my favourite university experience. It was so much more rewarding than a regular course. It balanced out my schedule and my life with something that was my own and really exciting. I learnt a plethora of practical skills such as time management, speaking in public situations and communication. I would whole heartedly recommend this to any student with some determination and passion for a topic.” – Forestry Student

“The SEEDS program has really changed my attitude towards sustainability issues. I feel more optimistic and more willing to take action in my everyday life.” – Commerce Student

“UBC is not an inaccessible institutional block. It is a community of individuals doing their best. Getting to personally meet this network and play a role was hugely rewarding.” – SEEDS Participant

Feedback from Staff:
“My involvement with SEEDS has been very beneficial in terms of enabling me to connect with students who are eager to embark on new research initiatives that build on an existing foundation of knowledge, and that provide useful information for my department.” – Land and Building Services Staff Member.

“SEEDS has certainly been of great benefit to Plant Operations, not only because of the free research but because it has allowed our staff to become directly involved in learning mission of the university through participation in a multitude of student projects.” – SEEDS Staff Advisor

Feedback from Faculty:
“The project report was unbelievable! The students tied in the entire course. It’s like nothing I’ve ever read! I always benefit hugely from SEEDS when I see students taking the theory and applying it to a practical, relevant project.” – SEEDS Faculty Advisor

“The sustainability challenges our world faces are increasingly complex. No longer can these challenges be addressed in isolation within the specialized towers of academia, behind the glowing screens of our students. Rather, these challenges require multi-stakeholder collaboration, curriculum greening, interdisciplinary teaching, learning, and research that is action orientated. The SEEDS Program provides an opportunity for this necessary endeavor. It helps creates opportunities on campus to unite our academics with the communities they are embedded within in working together to not only share knowledge but also to ultimately put into practice collaboratively. When I think of the future of education, I think of the SEEDS Program.” – Land and Food Systems Senior Instructor

The Future of SEEDS
As well as focusing on the projects that are currently shaping UBC, SEEDS staff are also looking at the future of sustainability on campus. Over 30 projects are in motion for the 2008-9 school term, building on previous sustainability initiatives, and developing new facets for growth at UBC. SEEDS hopes to see more involvement in faculty members’ curriculums, and more awareness of the program throughout campus. In addition to projects at UBC, SEEDS is also exploring a community program, which would apply sustainable practices to off-campus needs, and give students, faculty, and staff the ability to connect with a greater community. Since its inception, SEEDS has been contacted by university administrations worldwide, asking for advice on starting an academic sustainability program. A SEEDS-style program could be integrated into any university or college, regardless of its size, and hopefully, other campuses will begin to implement such programs. With the example of SEEDS at UBC, and the possibility of green programs and institutions in universities across the country and the world, the future looks bright for campus sustainability.

Allie Slemon is a 4th year Honours English student at the University of British Columbia. She is currently working on a SEEDS project on green buildings podcasts.

Announcements

In Memoriam

Dr. Steven Clemants 1954-2008

A passion for plants came early for Steve Clemants, who went on to become one of the leading botanists of the day. Born in Minnesota and raised in the towns of Edina and Minnetonka, Minnesota, and Chicago and Normal, Illinois, Steve developed a love of nature as a young boy. He had an affection for the flowers that grew in his family's garden, particularly tulips, but he especially admired wildflowers. Throughout his childhood, his mother, Doris, nurtured his interest, teaching him about local wildflowers and where they grew.

After completing high school in Minnetonka, Steve attended the University of Minnesota. He initially majored in computer science, but he missed the out-of-doors and his nature studies. This led him to change his undergraduate major to botany, his childhood love. His dual interests of botany and computer science served Steve very well later in his career; he was instrumental in developing a number of important databases for plant location records. Steve graduated from the University of Minnesota in 1976 but remained there to pursue a master's degree in botany with a minor in horticulture, which he obtained in 1979.

Steve's botanical pursuits took him to the City University of New York (CUNY) where, working at the New York Botanical Garden with curator James Luteyn, he pursued a doctorate in botany. His graduate work focused on
New World members of the blueberry family in the genus Bejaria, and this allowed him to conduct field trips in the tropics. He obtained his doctorate in botany from CUNY in 1984. It was during his graduate studies that his friend and fellow graduate student Brian Boom introduced Steve to Grace Markman, then a volunteer tour guide at the New York Botanical Garden. They later married.

After a brief teaching appointment at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, Steve accepted a position as a botanist with the New York Natural Heritage Program, and he and Grace moved to the Albany area in 1985. Utilizing his skills in botany and computer science, Steve developed a database of rare plant occurrences in New York State. He also conducted extensive fieldwork in search of rare plants. During this time his interests in plant research expanded beyond the blueberry family to other families, including the rush family and goosefoot family.

In 1989, Steve accepted a position as a research taxonomist at Brooklyn Botanic Garden, where he later served as director of Science; vice president of Science, Publications, and Library; and senior research scientist. As Steve continued his botanical research, he developed additional interests in urban ecology and conservation. Shortly after arriving at the Garden, he founded the New York Metropolitan Flora program, which has become an international model for studying plants in urban environments. Data from this pioneering project are now yielding important information on how human-caused phenomena, such as global warming and development, are affecting the region's plants.

During his time at BBG, Steve published dozens of research papers. In 2006 he coauthored Wildflowers in the Field and Forest: A Field Guide to the Northeastern United States (Oxford University Press) with New York Botanic Garden researcher and photographer Carol Gracie. This book has become one of most popular field guides for the Northeast. It is also used as a college textbook for field botany, enabling people to learn more about the wild plants Steve had admired since he was a boy. Steve also furthered botanical education by serving on the faculty at Rutgers University and the City University of New York.

Steve recognized the need to protect the plants he loved so much and served on numerous committees and boards of organizations active in local, national, and international conservation efforts. During his career he was president of the Nature Network; chair of the Invasive Plant Council of New York State; president of the board of Botanic Gardens Conservation International's U.S. office; historian of the Torrey Botanical Society; chairman of the Long Island Botanical Society; and member of the Woodland Advisory Board of Prospect Park. He was also codirector of the Center for Urban Restoration Ecology (CURE), a collaboration between Brooklyn Botanic Garden and Rutgers University, the first scientific initiative in the U.S. established to study and restore human-dominated lands. He served as editor-in-chief of Urban Habitats, a peer-reviewed scientific e-journal on the biology of urban areas around the world, which was launched in 2003.

In 2008, Dr. Clemants was instrumental in developing an agreement between the NYC Parks Department and Brooklyn Botanic Garden committing the resources of the two institutions to the conservation of plants native to New York City, the first comprehensive conservation initiative targeting the City's native plants. "Steve was a colleague and the leader of our mutual efforts to discover, preserve, and publicize local botanical biodiversity," said Adrian Benepe, NYC Parks Commissioner. "He will be deeply missed by all who care about natural New York and the great
beauty of its parks and wild spaces."

Steve was a remarkably kind, giving, and patient man, who always found time to assist students and other members of the public who came to the Garden with questions and requests. Shortly before Steve's passing, his extraordinary kindness was displayed when he learned that a Ukrainian colleague and his wife-who had never before been to New York-would briefly be in town during a flight layover. Steve picked them up, took them on a whirlwind tour of Brooklyn, and returned them to the airport in time for their flight. Gerry Moore, director of Science at Brooklyn Botanic Garden, said, "Steve's extensive knowledge of botany and willingness to help all who came to him with questions was a combination that served the Garden and the public well. His example inspires us to continue our research in the plant sciences, while always finding time to share our knowledge and our curiosity with individuals, from kindergartners to international researchers."

As news of his passing has spread, BBG science staff received messages from around the world from colleagues who admired Steve and his work. Peter H. Raven, president of the Missouri Botanical Garden, said, "Steve Clemants was a bright light in the field of botany, a lovely man who was utterly fascinated with plants, loved people, and made a marvelous contribution by combining his passions into every facet of his life. No one has done a better job in involving the public in the joy of learning about plants, finding them, thrilling in new discoveries, and understanding their traits. Steve's contributions to science were deep and numerous, and his contributions to development of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden over the years, through good times and difficult ones, were of fundamental importance in keeping that fine institution on an even keel.

His bright, friendly, pleasant personality will be missed as much as his outstanding professional skills, not only in research and in administration but in education and in his ability to uplift the spirit of everyone who knew him."

The Dr. Steven Clemants Wildflower Fund has been established to honor our late colleague and friend. Steve's widow, Grace Markman, is working with the Greenbelt Native Plant Center to plan a living memorial that will foster the planting of native wildflower species in New York City parks.

Donations in his memory should be made out to "City Parks Foundation, Dr. Steven Clemants Wildflower Fund," and mailed to City Parks Foundation, c/o Greenbelt Native Plant Center, 3808 Victory Blvd., Staten Island, NY 10314.

Books Reviewed

Field Guide to the Wild Orchids of Texas
Fluorescing World of Plant Secreting Cells
The Aliveness of Plants: The Darwins at the Dawn of Plant Science
Ending the Mendel-Fisher Controversy

Field Guide to the Wild Orchids of Texas, by Paul Martin Brown, artwork by Stan Folsom. 2008.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville. 316 pages. ISBN 978-0-8130-3159-0 (soft-bound). US $29.95.

Encompassing more, different vegetation and physiographic regions and a greater land area than any other of the contiguous 48 United States, Texas certainly looms large. Floristic treatments of Texas regions and the entire state have produced prodigious works including the Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas (Correll and Johnston 1979) and, more recently, Shinner and Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas (Digges et al. 1999). Both of these volumes are essentials when it comes to gaining knowledge of Texas’ vast vegetional wealth, but neither of them is the kind of thing one wants to carry into the field on a regular basis. Reasonably enough one might wish for a real field guide treating Texas plants, the kind of thing that fits easily into a backpack or even a large pocket, and the wish is cleverly fulfilled if your interest is in orchid identification.

Paul Martin Brown’s Field Guide to the Wild Orchids of Texas is a sturdily bound volume with a number of features that make it a joy for orchid enthusiasts. The text is divided into four major sections: introduction to Texas vegetation regions and to orchid terminology and keying; the actual field guide portion featuring alphabetically arranged genera found within the state and individual species’ descriptions and accompanying illustrative figures; a section of references and resources that provides a smorgasbord of taxonomic vantage points; and a region-by-region synopsis of what orchids one is likely to encounter where. Several appendices, a glossary, a bibliography, and index complete the book.

In terms of true utility, the keys to genera and species within genera are what make this guide most valuable. The majority of genera can readily be determined using the appropriate key, but there are exceptions. If confronted with a Malaxis, a novice would never find it because the key groups it among genera with basal leaves, but all known North American species produce cauline leaves. If one is familiar with Platanthera species in other locales, the use of a three-toothed or erose labellum margin to segregate out species assigned by Brown to the genus Gymnadeniopsis would surely cause some confusion (where would Platanthera integrilabia key if ever found in Texas?). At the species level identification tends to be more straight-forward. Information regarding species appears as a page of text and one or more illustrations facing photographs of whole plants, inflorescences, and vegetation and a distribution dot map for the species in Texas. Plant descriptions, habitat, and comments on species provide good, general information but are lacking in detail for those with an intimate knowledge of native orchids.

Likewise, the photographs and illustrations serve as useful references in the field but do not suffice for providing diagnostic characteristics necessary to definitively nail down an orchid’s identity. Comparing Wild Orchids of Texas to two classics of North American orchid identification, The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida (Luer 1975) and Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region (Case 1987), Brown’s field guide squarely occupies the middle ground as an identification tool. The photographs and illustrations in Luer are more detailed; Case’s species descriptions provide such clarity that one can envision the plant in its habitat without ever having visited a field site. To the good, Brown’s text is more informative than Luer’s and, in many instances, with better figures than Case.

Depending on individual predilections different readers will find the other sections of Brown’s field guide to be more or less useful. In part three, References and Resources, both the species check list and distribution list by physiographic region provide the kinds of field tripping incentives well known to anyone who maintains a life list. The comparative taxonomy, complete with Brown’s commentary on previous publications covering the orchid flora of Texas, does little more than hint at the sniping common among rival orchid taxonomists. Likewise, the synonymies and misapplied names seem better omitted from a field guide meant to encourage a passion for native orchids. Orchid Hunting, part four of Brown’s text, should be a treasure for anyone finding him or herself spending some time in any of Texas’ eco-regions, particularly if time is available for orchid seeking. Appendix 1, a modification of two prior publications, speculates on Platanthera chapmanii (or P. Xchapmanii) origins and interactions with other Platanthera species, a topic of continued debate and investigation probably better presented in a different venue. The remaining appendices (two and three), show distributions and flowering times, respectively.

In summary the Field Guide to the Wild Orchids of Texas provides a mix of field-useful and field not-so-useful information. Enthusiasts will find this book handy as a guide to identifying native Texas orchids. Serious orchid researchers will find parts of it annoying at best, but those parts aren’t ones to be read in the field.

- Nancy E. Cowden, Ph.D. Biology Department, Lynchburg College, 1501 Lakeside Drive, Lynchburg, Va. 24501

Literature Cited
Case, F.W., Jr. 1987. Orchids of the Western Great Lakes Region. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin 48.

Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas.

Digges, G.M., Jr., B.L. Lipscomb, and R.J. O’Kennon. 1999. Shinner and Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas. Botanical Research Institute of Texas and Austin College. Sida, Botanical Miscellany, no. 16.

Luer, C.A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada excluding Florida. The New York Botanical Garden.

Fluorescing World of Plant Secreting Cells by Victoria V. Roshchina, 2008
ISBN 9-781578 085156, 338 pages, (hardcover US $98.60), Science Publishers, Enfield, New Hampshire, USA, an imprint of Edenbridge Ltd. British Isles.

Autofluorescence occurs in many living cells and tissues including microbials, animals, and plants when excited by ultraviolet or violet irradiation Stereomicroscopy of luminescence tissues and cells are especially attractive and distinct and have become a separate method of cellular analysis in many biological applications. For example, autofluorescence endoscopy has been used in assorted biomedicine applications such as differentiating between normal and cancerous animal tissues, looking at eye corneas with regards to diabetes, and gastrointestinal malfunctions. Fluorescent proteins found in sea animals also are used in genetic engineering. Despite many achievements with regards to luminescence microscopy, little has been published about the compounds that contribute to autofluorescence of living organisms.

‘Fluorescent World of Plant Secreting Cells’, written by Victoria V. Roshchina summarizes information on autofluorescence of plant secretory cells as possible bioindicators and biosensors. She also provides practical applications of confocal microscopy and microspectrofluorimetry that can be applied at many universities and laboratories. Roshchina is regarded as one of the world’s authorities on cell fluorescence, having published more than 63 papers on this topic. Her book contains seven main chapters that possess major themes and subheadings. At the end of the book are two appendices including a glossary of biological terms and color photographs of secretory cells, a useful bibliography, a taxonomic plant (Latin) index, and a subject index.

Chapter 1 provides a synopsis of the characteristics of fluorescence cells, their placement in plant tissues, techniques used to study autofluorescence, and roles of fluorescent structures such as attracting insect pollinators, aiding in defense against parasites and pests, and transmitting chemosignals from one to cell to another. Special attention is given to secondary metabolites that are present in secretory cells of various plant species and their color of fluorescence. Excellent tables are provided including the fluorescence maxima of substances in organs of plant taxa and the autofluorescence of organisms that are associated with plants including fungal spores, ticks, spiders, and cyanobacteria. In this chapter and throughout the book, Roshchina notes that particular compounds contribute to fluorescent intensities: phenols, flavins, alkaloids, quinines, polyacetylenes, terpenoids, and coumarins.

Differences in the fluorescence of external (trichomes, hydathodes, and nectaries) and internal secretory cells (laticifers, resin ducts, and idioblasts) among spore and seed-bearing plants is the major theme of Chapter 2. More than 141 species are discussed regarding their type of secreting cells and secretions and fluorescence maxima. Many examples are given that show how fluorescence colors vary within a plant as well as throughout its life history. For example, Roshchina discussed how 1) secretory cells associated with seeds and leaves of Thuja occidentalis possessed different emissions, 2) capitate and non-capitate trichomes on the same leaf of Calendula officinalis had different fluorescence maxima, and 3) the pigment composition and maxima in the fluorescence spectra of intact pollen grains of Philadelphus grandiflorus varied with maturation.

The third chapter discusses particular aspects of fluorescing secreting surfaces and compounds that are contained in secretory cells. Topics discussed include crystal excretions on root and leaf surfaces, exine, intine, and cytoplasm of sporopollenin, extracts of organic solvents produced by bud scales, flower petals, and leaves, and secondary metabolites including flavonoids, phenols, and terpenoids. She notes that factors associated with fluorescence are governed by temperature, pH of medium, the chemical nature of the compound, and the ability of the external chemical to oxidize or reduce the fluorescence substance.

Chapter 4 explores further as to how secretory structures change throughout their development in spore and seed-bearing plants. For example, bud scales of Alnus, Betula and Populus fill up with resin-like secretions that give off a bright blue-yellow luminescence in the early spring but this luminescence disappears when the bud scales drop and the young leaves emerge. Roshchina mentioned that this secretory function may be associated with protecting primordial leaves from pest and late frost damage. Additionally, she noted that oil cells and ducts, glandular trichomes, and salt-containing glands alter in autoflourscence during a plants development which may reflect alterations in a composition and/or redox state of accumulated secondary products.

Interactions between cells of the same plant species or among different species related to fluorescent signaling is the focus of Chapter 5. Roshchina mentioned that pollen-pistil contact at fertilization, root-seedling contacts, pollen-pollen interaction (stimulating or inhibiting pollen tube growth), and microbial parasites entering leaf sheaths of economically important grass species, all exhibited changes in fluorescence. Cell-acceptor or signal-stimulus responses commonly cause the recipient to generate a secreting substance that may be a protein, lipid, oxidant, or antioxidant. These mechanisms may be of interest to biochemists and physicists.

Chapter 6 discusses how fluorescent secretory cells have the potential of making pharmaceutical drugs, determining cell viability, and monitoring ecological disturbance without performing tissue homogenizations and long-biochemical manipulations. Emphasis is given to secretory cells within microspores of Equisetum arvense and assorted species of angiosperm pollen that are capable of responding to ozone fluctuations, peroxides, and stress. Charts, graphs, and reactions showing substrates and products clearly depict treated and untreated situations.

The final chapter examines how some fluorescent secretory compounds such as sesquiterpene lactones and alkaloids may be used as histological stains in studying intercellular and intracellular interactions. Most of the secretory compounds used in these studies were of weedy angiosperms and/or medicinal or poisonous pharmaceutical plants. In many instances, secretory compounds are able to bind with ATPase, cyclic AMP, contractile proteins, nucleic acids and lipids causing them to fluorescence under the irradiation of ultra-violet light, therefore, showing the location of particular structures.

The field of fluorescing cells is a dynamic field. This book provides a good basis of understanding plant secreting cells. Throughout the book there are overlapping themes, misspelled words, and word spacing errors. Data contained in this book, however, will remain pertinent for years to follow. This book is an excellent reference for professionals, researchers, and advanced students that are interested in ecology, plant science, criminology, and luminescence microscopy.

- Nina L. Baghai-Riding, Division of Biological and Physical Sciences, Delta State University

The Aliveness of Plants: The Darwins at the Dawn of Plant Science. Ayres, Peter. 2008
ISBN 978-1-85196-970-8 (Cloth US$99.00) 227 pp. Pickering & Chatto, 21 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1A 2TH, UK.

This is the perfect book for every botanist to read and digest as we begin 2009, the 200th anniversary year of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of the origin of species. In fact, it should be required reading for ALL biologists. Using the vehicle of three generations of the Darwin family, Ayres presents a history of the origin of botanical science from the 18th into the 20th centuries – the transition from gentleman philosophers (Erasmus) doing “country house experiments”(attributed to Julius von Sachs in reference to Charles) to experimental scientists in their laboratories (Francis, who studied with Sachs). It demonstrates the transition of botany from a subfield of medicine whose practitioners had medical degrees to an independent, leading science. For our non-botanist colleagues it is instructive to demonstrate how misleading is the popular image of Charles the evolutionist because he studied plants as much as animals. “It has always pleased me to exalt plants in the scale of organized beings…any proposition [is] more readily tested in botanical works…than zoological.” (Darwin to J.D. Hooker)

Plants were a hobby for Erasmus Darwin, who was by training a physician and by inclination a poet and philosopher. He inherited financial security and social position and passed this on to his succeeding generations. Erasmus is perhaps best known for his poem, The Botanic Garden, written in two parts. In the first, The Economy of Vegetation emphasizes insectivorous plants while the second, The Loves of the Plants, describes the Linnaean System. More significant, though was Phytologia, published two years before his death. Here Erasmus provides a synthesis of the state of botanical knowledge in 1800. He includes the works of Hales, Priestly, Lavoisier, and others (including his own) examining plants as photosynthetic organisms. Many of the individuals mentioned were his personal friends (also including Benjamin Franklin) and others he knew indirectly via his friends. He clearly anticipates the emergence of plant physiology from within botany but he also covers sexual selection, insectivorous plants, artificial selection and expounds a (pre-Lamarkian) theory of evolution. Phytologia was the standard for British botanical thought for the next several decades and his example of networking was taken up both by his grandson and great grandson.

Somewhat surprising is the little credit Charles gave to his grandfather for some of his ideas and inclinations – not just on evolution, but on the structure and function of plants. For instance, the world knew little about insectivorous plants until Charles published his book on that subject in which he declares “I heard that insects were thus caught, but knew nothing further on the subject.” Yet Erasmus had a fascination with insectivorous plants which formed a major part of Phytologia in which he called Drosera the “Queen of the marsh.” This is the same plant referred to by Charles’ wife, Emma, in a letter to Charles Lyell’s wife, “he is treating Drosera… just like a living creature, and I suppose he hopes to end in proving it to be an animal.” Later, in a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin admitted “[Drosera] is a wonderful plant, or rather a most sagacious animal.” Gray, long a friend of Darwin, is credited by Ayres of suggesting to Darwin that he pursue a study of climbing plants.

The best known of Darwin’s botanical books is The Power of Movement in Plants,.co-authored with his son, Francis. This book grew out of the revision of The Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants in which the younger Darwin assisted with editing. Francis’ mark in the subsequent revisions of all of his father’s books can be seen in the citations of others’ works which begin to appear. Francis’ medical training required a research thesis and he was trained in the “modern” laboratory where specialized equipment and careful measurements were the norm. Similarly, “modern” standards of citation were required. It was natural for Francis to be concerned that his father’s books met the new standards of scientific publication.

Francis left a promising career in animal physiology to assist his father and in doing so brought the tools and techniques of laboratory biology to the partnership. Francis, unlike his father, was fluent in German and made two visits to Germany to study with Sachs, the world’s pre-eminent plant physiologist. The Darwins and Sachs had differing views on tropisms which is reflected in their later writings. Francis recalled that “Sachs was most kind and helpful [during the first visit], and under his direction I contributed a small paper to his Arbeiten…” Sachs later wrote: “Personal acquaintances often have their good side. I first became aware of the whole wretchedness of Darwin’s activities when Francis Darwin studied here…and when the miserable book ‘On Movements’ appeared, I realized that here we are dealing with literary rascals.” As a result, “Power of Movement” was viewed less favorably when it was published than it is today!

Francis’ botanical achievements usually are lost in the shadow of his more famous father. Yet like Charles and Erasmus, Francis was elected to the Royal Society based on his own work in plant physiology - - particularly on the function of stomata – a topic that was of interest to his great grandfather a century earlier. He also played a significant role in the development of botany as an independent scientific discipline at Cambridge and of “the new botany” in Britain. We are aware of the circle of friends Charles Darwin gathered around himself that influenced his studies. I was intrigued by the circle of friends and relatives around Francis, including: F. F. Blackman, Sidney Vines, R.A. Fisher, Henry Marshall Ward, and especially William Bateson.

In the last chapter, Ayres briefly traces the Darwinian botanical legacy deep into the 20th century. We are familiar with the thread leading from Darwin through Fritz Went and the discovery of auxin. Less familiar are Francis’ contributions to the statolith theory of gravitropism, crop physiology in general, and the links between photosynthesis and transpiration. The latter thread connects to current work on climate change. There are extensive end notes and works cited and a thorough and complete index. I would have liked additional figures, both of the personalities cited and particularly from Francis’ works. It was an enjoyable read for me and would be accessible to my students.

- Marshall D. Sundberg, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS 66801.

Ending the Mendel-Fisher Controversy. Franklin, Allan, A.W. F. Edwards, Daniel J. Fairbanks, Daniel L. Hartl, and Teddy Seidenfeld. 2008.
ISBN 978-0-8229-5986-1 (Paper US$27.95) 330 pp. University of Pittsburgh Press, Eureka Building, Fifth Floor, 3400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

As we move into the world of post-Mendelian genetics, of RNAi and dicers, it may be worth reflecting on how this all got started over 100 years ago. For close to a century, a particular view of genetics, called Mendelian, was dominant both amongst professional geneticists, and in general education extending to the middle school level. It was while working with middle school and high school teachers that I first encountered the notion that Mendel might have perpetrated a fraud. I applied a good deal of effort trying to understand both the charges and the various responses that were appearing through the 1990s. Until recently the questions raised by Fisher appeared largely unanswerable. This volume may put that problem to rest.

Mendel obviously did not think of himself as a geneticist, but as a student of hybridization. His training in physics, and experience in practical horticulture, allowed him to gain new insights into the way that characteristics are transmitted from one generation to another. His discoveries were largely ignored for the first 30 years, and were treated as controversial by those who paid attention. Carl Naegeli, pre-eminent botanist, actively discouraged him from pursuing his ideas. Other prominent workers preferred their own more traditional interpretations. There are no records of efforts to repeat his work until about 1900.

Controversy is often good for book sales but rarely nice for the participants. When both are long-deceased it is mainly about their reputations, and when the controversy involves science, it is usually the whole scientific enterprise that suffers. That is certainly so in this case. Living in a state where Darwin, another great 19th century figure, is also frequently ridiculed, I am acutely aware of how important it is for successful science to maintain the highest possible level of integrity.

So what is the controversy? Simply put, some of Mendel’s results are “too good to be true” in a statistical sense, if they represent the complete output of the clear, simple research program that he described in his two lectures to the scientific society of Brno (or Brunn) in early 1865. The publication describing Mendel’s work, though reasonably widely distributed, was apparently not widely read until about 1900. At that time it was recognized for it’s clarity of presentation of the case for discrete units of heredity, and as R.A. Fisher described it, was used for polemical purposes by the “rediscoverers.”

Most interesting is Fisher’s observation that Bateson used Mendel as a cudgel to beat Darwin, whose Theory of Natural Selection Bateson opposed. Darwin had a very fuzzy notion of how heredity worked, and early on, his thinking was Lamarckian and he viewed heredity as a blending process. Mendel’s work describes a clear substrate on which selection can work ( a collection of discrete characters), though no description of how change (speciation) might happen, other than by recombining (not blending)of already existent traits. Darwin supplied the concept of mutation, which Mendel never mentions.

We have no evidence that Mendel himself was opposed to Darwin’s conclusions about selection as a force for speciation. Through careful analysis of Mendel’s copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, Fairbanks and Rytting (chapter 7 if this book) noted that Mendel was well aware of Darwin’s thinking by the time he published his results in 1865. Some key passages were highlighted by him. However, there is no way that Mendel could have known of Darwin’s work in 1856 when he began his studies in earnest, or even in 1859. Mendel read little or no English and had a German translation of Origins from 1863. Mendel made few recorded comments on Darwin or his theory, although Fisher argues that Mendel in fact sought to explain some of Darwin’s observations of variation under domestication by his own discovery of discrete factors. Mendel’s text may be read in that way.

Fisher was not the first to note Mendel’s “too good to be true” statistics. In 1902, W.F.R. Weldon made a detailed analysis of the results and applied the newly invented Chi squared statistic. He published his analysis in the first volume of Karl Pearson’s Biometrika. A few years later Fisher, as an undergraduate, gave a talk presenting a similar commentary, but it was not until 1936 that he put all of his detailed analysis into a formally written form, in Annals of Science. Oddly, Fisher never mentions Weldon’s work, though he used the same statistical tool. The centennial year of Mendel’s discovery sparked a renewed interest in Mendel, and the “too good” fit noted so clearly by Fisher. Since 1965 there have been dozens of detailed analyses of both texts, with both attacks and defenses of Mendel.

This volume, a well produced collective effort, comes about 40 years after the “too good” controversy really took off. The five main contributors to this volume include a physicist, a statistician, two biologists and one philosopher/statistician. They have included a standard translation of Mendel’s work (chapter 2), that was used by Bateson in the early1900s, with his 1909 commentary, and Fisher’s complete paper from 1936 (chapter 3). Physicist and philosopher of science Allan Franklin provides an overview of the controversy in the first 75 page chapter. In this he lays out the problem with a thorough review of both Mendel and Fisher’s works. He also notes the various proposals pro and con, regarding whether Mendel cheated, or Fisher tried to discredit Mendel.

Chapter four, a closely reasoned 25 pages by statistician A.W.F. Edwards, incidentally Fisher’s last student, thoroughly examines the problem of the too close results, while a postscript by Edwards considers alternative hypotheses. The fourth chapter is reprinted from a 1986 volume. There is little or no doubt left after Edward’s discussion, that the data presented by Mendel is really a “best presentation” of selected results, not a complete record of his studies. Extreme results with poor chi-squared fits seem to have been trimmed away

Chapter five gives a summary of the controversy by V. Orel, a Czech biographer of Mendel, and D.L. Hartl, a professor of biology at Harvard. They analyze carefully the cogent notion that a scientific paper is rhetoric, not a diary. Mendel first presented his work orally and published it as presented, so his paper is clearly a rhetorical work. Certain phrases and ideas are repeated several times for emphasis by Mendel, while many details are omitted. This chapter appeared in another volume in 1994.

Much work has gone into attempts to reconstruct the chronology and estimate the scale of Mendel’s work, most notably that of Fisher in his 1936 paper. Over the years, many biologists have added and subtracted more and less useful bits of information regarding the behavior of peas and their pests. Many of those authors are cited by Fairbanks and Rytting (chapter 7). The conclusion is that Mendel could have done what he said he did in the space and time he indicated. Left at issue is just exactly how he did it. Fisher greatly admired Mendel’s clarity of presentation, but was bothered by the “too good” fit. Seidenfeld provides yet another look at the “goodness of fit” problem in chapter 6, specifically considering various ways that the data might have been trimmed or cooked. A very interesting appendix shows a modern day result with peas where again the fit is remarkably good.

Finally, Fairbanks and Rytting’s chapter considers both botanical and historical aspects of the case, in an article that first appeared in 2001 in the American Journal of Botany. A very interesting point in their careful reading of Mendel, is that the first four traits he chose to study were those already analyzed by others. In his second year of study he successfully added three others. Thus Mendel used a completely logical approach to his work, first confirming and then extending a series of observations. His special contribution was to devise a simple mathematical relationship to explain the observed phenomena, and to propose a distinct mechanism that allows that relationship to come to fruition.

Fairbanks, in a postscript to chapter seven, reviews the ongoing (largely internet) controversy and provides logical correctives. One point that remains perhaps insoluble, in the absence of any original data or notebooks, is the “too good” fit. But the most reasonable hypothesis for why only a portion of Mendel’s results are presented, and of those only the results that fit within a reasonable closeness to his model is simple. It may be drawn from a passage that Mendel was surely familiar with- “there is much else.. but this is written so that you might believe. For if it were all to be recorded, perhaps the whole world could not contain the books”. Certainly it would be more than we would ever want to read. The present volume should suffice.

- Lawrence Davis, Department of Biochemistry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Books Received for Review

If you would like to review a book or books for PSB, the easiest way to do so is to: highlight and copy the book details, click on the Reviewer Requested link to the right of the book's details and paste the information into the email form that pops up. Remember to include your name, University/Department, all of your mailing details and the date by which the book will be reviewed (15 January, 15 April, 15 July or 15 October). Alternatively, email, write or call the Editor, including the details noted aboe, as soon as you notice the book of interest in this list because they go quickly! - Editor (psb@botany.org, Ph 620-341-5605)