04 February 2010

Scientists (not) talking to gardeners

This gorgeous display of phalaenopsis is part of a study by a professor I know who researches (among other things) orchids.

How cool is that – right? Don't you wish he had an orchid blog to pass on all sorts of tips on how to get the darn things to rebloom after you buy them?
Well – not really. He actually doesn't know much more about growing orchids at home than anyone else. In fact, I've been to his house: He had one orchid, which was dying, just like the one on your windowsill. He knows and studies commercial orchid production – how to rapidly and efficiently grow baby orchids into the lovely plants in full bloom you can pick up at virtually any grocery store these days. In other words: He's NOT “one of the few scientists interested in talking to gardeners.”
I put that last line in quotes because it is a phrase I've seen often on Garden Rant to describe people like Jeff Gillman – as in “his is one of the few scientists interested in talking to gardeners."
Sadly, this is true: Very few scientists do research that directly relates to home gardeners. I'm a grad student in a horticulture department, and I know faculty who study everything from vegetables to flowers to conifers to turf grass to weeds -- but none of them study these topics in terms of the home gardener. They study breeding, watering and fertilizer at the nursery, light levels in commercial greenhouses, even marketing --  in short, they study everything required to get a plant in your hands walking up to the check-out counter at a garden center – and nothing after that point. This isn't just a quirk of one particular university. The same is true of the school where I got my bachelors degree, and of 99.99% of the research I see presented at academic conferences.
But why? Why are so few scientists interested in talking to home gardeners? The truth is, I think lots of them are interested – they just can't afford it.
As usual, it comes down to money. Before I landed (more or less accidentally) in grad school, I assumed academic research programs were funded by the university. Not true: Professors are more like small business owners than regular employees. When a new professor is hired they get an office, a telephone, and part of a salary (Increasingly faculty are only paid by the university for 9 months of the year). The money for laboratory equipment, staff, salary and fees for graduate students like myself, fees to use university resources like greenhouse space or plots at research farms, and yes, one fourth of their salary, they have to find themselves. To get the money to pay for all this professors spend a huge amount of their time applying for grants from industry groups and governmental organization like the USDA. In other words: They have to come up with research ideas that will convince someone to fork over the money to actually get it done -- and home gardeners don't tend to give out grants. A book for gardeners could bring in some money, but not enough to run a whole research program – certainly nothing compared to the 14 million (yes, million) dollar grant a professor in my department recently landed.
Want more scientists to talk to gardeners? Well, you're going to have to pay for it. Oh wait – you already do. That 14 million dollar grant I mentioned? Your tax dollars by way of the USDA. I'm not  running down government funding for basic research – those 14 million are going towards spectacular research. But wouldn't it be nice if a little of that money went to research we could use?  Maybe it is time we gardeners spoke up and convinced our government to make research on healthy, environmentally sound home gardening more of a priority – or rather, a priority at all -- so the scientists who are interested in talking to us are able to.

03 February 2010

Wednesday Links

I'm giving this top billing this week, because I think it is pretty important (normally these links are simply on the order I find them during the week): Do go check out the blog biofortified. It is written by a team of graduate students (and their mascot: Fank N. Foodie) studying genetic engineering. They're also environmentalists, advocates of local food, and generally all-around-cool. If you are looking to move past the silly and pointless debate over if GMOs are good or bad, and on to reading real, thoughtful discussion of what we should and shouldn't be doing with the technology, start here. It is high on my Must Read list from now on.

By way of the always excellent Scientist Gardener, plans for what is being billed as the world's largest urban farm in Detroit.Which is cool. I was in Detroit recently, and the city is spectacular -- spectacularly depressing, that is. We drove through entire neighborhoods of lovely victorian homes where only one or two houses WEREN'T boarded up. So I'm super excited about the growing urban agriculture movement in Detroit these days.

This was posted, like, 6 months ago, but I just found it, and feel like linking to it: James and the Giant Corn explains why pineapples are awesome.

Carol provides translation for what house plants are really saying. I hope she's not right... her plants sound pretty demanding. And do they really WANT to be deadheaded? I always thought having your half-developed offspring chopped off would be pretty traumatic. Though not as bad as what the poor hyacinths have waiting for them.

Apparently, in New Zealand they are seeing a shift in gardening trends: A move away from grasses and foliage and back to a more traditional flower centric look. I'm not sure if this is true in the US (here it seem to be all about vegetables at the moment), and if it is, I'm not sure what I think about it. I love growing all of the above, but I do think flowers are more fun to breed, and plant breeding is my favorite part of gardening.

Garden Rant has a great piece on native and non-native plants -- a great summing up of what sounds like a spectacularly sane chapter on the same topic by Linda Chalker-Scott of The Garden Professors.

Germi goes gaga for Aloes. Well, she's BEEN gaga for aloes, but seriously, she's taking it to another level. I should warn you, this post induced SEVERE zone envy, and anyone else in a cold climate might want to wait until spring to view it.


One scientist finds trees growing two to four times faster than usual, apparently due to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I'm not surprised that it increases growth rate -- CO2 supplementation has been showed to do that before -- I AM surprised at the numbers. Two to four TIMES faster? I'll have to track down the actual paper and read it in detail. (I'll pretend this is part of studying for my up-coming comprehensive exams...)

01 February 2010

Where double flowers come from

Every wondered how plant breeders get from single flowers like this:


To big doubles full of petals like this?

(photo from jungle seeds)
Well, it starts with flowers like this:

Look closely (click on the image to expand it) in the center of each flower, and you can see little tiny specks of extra petals -- they're actually called "petaloids"
Here is what they look like carefully pulled out of each flower: (I highly recommend clicking on the photo to see them much larger)

At far right is a normal stamen -- the male part of the flower that produces pollen. The others are in various stages of conversion into petals. Keep going with this, and you get the full, frilly, double flowers you see in the second pictures. It only takes a very small change in the expression of a single gene to switch an anther to a petal -- so double versions of flowers pop up randomly all the time in nature due to random mutations, or in the genetic confusion of hybrids between species (which is what lead to the petaloids in these pictures). In the wild, of course, double flowers die out because they are usually virtually sterile -- and even when they aren't how is a bee supposed to get in there and pollinate them? But in the garden, we treasure them and keep them alive -- so much so that many people don't even realize that the classic rose:


Is a double version of a very simple flower with only five petals like this: