CHALLENGES

Frustration: Many students reported being frustrated with how hard it

was to find information and how much time it took. Among the students

who reported how many websites they visited (ranging from 3 to 300), all

found fewer than half to be useful. Some students eventually agreed with

me that this is, in itself, a useful lesson: “Great project. Learned a lot about

my at-risk plant and processing internet data from mostly unuseful sources

to make a useful project.” (2012)

One student who rated the project as not worthwhile and added that she

learned, “I don’t like using databases,” recommended that future classes

complete it, “for students to experience the difficulties other scientists have

and to understand database research.”

The 3 students who recommended not assigning the project in the future

mentioned “frustrating” (2009), the amount of time required, and the

conflicting information found , “Different cites [sic] have different views.

Hard to choose.” (2012)

Poor Information: In 2013, I used the student score sheets as background

for United Plant Savers master scores. Besides learning that some students

had relied upon questionable sources, I also learned that several students

confused “time to seed germination” with “age at first reproduction”, and

“horticultural requirements” with “native habitat”. During the project, I

was shocked that my “digital native” students would Google a common

name ,“True Unicorn”, and expect to find information on plant populations

of “Aletris farinosa.”

No Feedback: While doing “original” research thrilled some students,

others found it very disconcerting that I could not tell them if they were

correct. This problem carried over to grading: because I could verify

sources, several hard workers felt deflated that they earned the same

number of points as those who slacked. Additionally, 2009, students

submitted their scores to the United Plant Savers through the UpS website

and never received any response.

Not fun: While 10 of 13 students rated the project as at least “somewhat”

enjoyable, enjoyability ratings for the at-risk assessment project was much

lower than for most other 2012 Plant Taxonomy activities.

Using the At-Risk Tool as a Botanical Teaching Tool

Lisa Castle and Plant Biology Students Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Department of Biological Sciences

CHOKECHERRY

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE USE Overall, using the at-risk tool as a teaching tool achieved its educational goals: students assigned to this task learned more about botany, conservation of

medicinal plants and data retrieval. While it has taken a long time, the results of the student efforts are now being put to use by the United Plant Savers

when setting conservation priorities.

The project could be assigned in many different plant science classes, although instructors assigning it should prepare for student frustration. For aiding

conservation efforts, it would be most helpful if students were to score plants not currently deemed “at-risk” by the United Plant Savers in order to expand

the number of plants assessed. The next step is for this assignment will be contributed as a module to the Open Network in Ethnobiology. Eventually the

United Plant Savers will have a way for students and other members of the public to submit new information about wild-harvested medicinal plants. In the

meantime, please have students submit completed score sheets directly to me at lisa.castle@swous.edu

Many thanks to the United Plant Savers and all 56 Botany and Plant Taxonomy Students!

THE ASSIGNMENT Individual students were assigned a wild-harvested medicinal plant

species and asked to score it using the United Plant Savers’ At-Risk

Assessment Tool. In order to do this, the students needed to find

information about the species’ life history, habitat, population, and

medicinal uses using internet resources (see the Assessment Tool

Questions, Fig. 1). Students were asked to document the specific

knowledge and sources of information for all scores. Students were

told that the resulting information was being used by the United

Plant Savers (UPS) to help set conservation priorities and that the

class results were being presented at scientific meetings (West

Virginia Academy of Sciences in 2007 and 2009, Society of

Ethnobiology in 2012). They were reminded that these nobody had

compiled all of this information together before and that their

information would be considered when the United Plant Savers

assigned a final score to the species.

Students were given full credit (50 class points) for the assignment

once a documented score sheet (Fig. 2) and personal response

survey were submitted.

Altogether, 56 students completed the assignment, 42 enrolled in

Botany at Glenville State College in West Virginia (19 in 2007, 23

in 2009) and 14 in Plant Taxonomy at Southwestern Oklahoma

State University in 2012. As part of their final, plant Taxonomy

students were also asked to rate all major assignments based on how

much they learned in five areas and how “enjoyable” and

“worthwhile” they felt the assignments were.

ABSTRACT

Undergraduate students in three different plant science classes at two primarily undergraduate

institutions scored wild-harvested medicinal herbs using the United Plant Savers’ At-Risk

Assessment Tool. Here I report on the goals, successes and failures of scoring plants as a class

assignment from educational and conservation perspectives, and offer suggestions for adapting the

assignment for other class settings. The goals of this “authentic experience” assignment were to

introduce students to medicinal plants and plant conservation efforts, reinforce botanical

terminology, and increase data retrieval and sorting skills. Reflection responses from students

suggest that the assignment succeeded over classroom exercises with similar educational objectives.

Many students also reported frustration with hard-to-find and contradictory information and with

the idea that the instructor could not tell them if they were correct. The resultant scores were in the

same range as scores from experts, with in-progress documentation making the activity more useful

educationally and for conservation.

I. Life History How vulnerable are plants based on their life history?

1. Main Question: Life span

+4 Annual or Biennial (1-2 years)

+4 Perennial Plant that is not destructively harvested

+8 Short Lived Perennial (2-5 years)

+12 Long Lived Perennial (> 5 years)

Life History Modifying Questions

1.1 Age at first reproduction

1.2 Ability to withstand disturbance

1.3 Ability to reproduce vegetatively under normal conditions

1.4 Ability to reproduce from seed under normal conditions

1.5Necessary interactions with other organisms

II. Effects of Harvest on Individuals and Populations How does harvest affect plants?

2. Main Question: Part of plant most commonly harvested

+4 Harvest is of leaves and twigs only.

+8 Harvest is of seeds, fruits, flowers, stem bark or off-shoots.

+12 Harvest is of roots, root bark or entire plant.

Harvest Effects Modifying Questions

2.1 Post Harvest Recovery of Individual Plants

2.2 Harvest Interval

2.3 Length of Harvest Season

III. Abundance and Range How many plants are there?

3. Main Question: Is the plant naturally abundant?

+4 Many dense populations exist

+6 A few dense populations and many scattered populations exist

+8 Many scattered populations exist

+10 Few scattered populations exist and many more sparse populations

+12 Populations are few and sparse

Abundance and Range Modifying Questions

3.1 Range

3.2 Change in overall population size in primary harvest range

3.3 Degree of habitat specialization

IV. Habitat How vulnerable is the habitat?

4. Main Question: How vulnerable is the plant’s habitat?

+4 Habitat is widespread and no more threatened than all land areas.

+8 Habitat is limited OR specifically threatened

+12 Habitat is limited AND specifically threatened

Habitat Modifying Questions

4.1 Habitat Acreage Change

4.2 Habitat Fragmentation

4.3 Confined to a limited or very vulnerable soil type

4.4 Habitat Threats

V. How much is needed? What is the demand?

5. Main Question: Annual Demand for Wild Harvested Plant

+4 Less than 1 ton dry weight

+8 1 to 10 tons dry weight

+12 More than 10 tons dry weight

Demand Modifying Questions

5.1 Yield per Acre

5.2 Availability of good substitute to wild harvested plant

5.3 Cultivation and potential for cultivation

Figure 3:

Echinacea angustifolia

Student scores for echinacea, 44,

66 and 42 were close to the UPS

current score of 42 when E.

angustifolia alone was scored.

Figure 4: Mayapple

(Podophyllum peltatum)

A West Virginia student

assigned the species a

score of 27, ranking it as

less vulnerable than the

current UPS score of 34.

Figure 1: The United

Plant Savers’ At-Risk

Assessment Tool

Questions

Scientific Plant Name: Aletris farinosa

Common Name(s): True Unicorn Root

Knowledge Source of Knowledge Score

Life History

1 Life Span slow growing perennial http://www.natureserve.org 12

1.1 Age at First Reproduction less than 2 weeks http://tomclothier.hort.net/page02.html -2

1.2 Disturbance Tolerance steady growing plant http://www.natureserve.org 0

1.3 Vegetative Reproduction grows vegetatively in the wild http://www.natureserve.org -2

1.4 Seed Reproduction Many seeds found inside leathery egg http://www.herbs2000.com -2

1.5 Interactions none required http://www.natureserve.org -2

Life History Total 4

Population Effects

2 Part of Plant Harvested rhizome, sometimes leaves http://www.naturalstandard.com 8

2.1 Post-Harvest Recovery unknown (assume some plants survive 0

2.2 Harvest Interval Autumn http://www.natureserve.org 0

2.3 Length of Harvest Season May to August or right after bloom http://www.herbs2000.com -2

Population Total 6

Abundance and Range

3 Natural Abundance Found very limited in multiple states http://plants.usda.gov 10

3.1 Range Central and Eastern United States to Onta http://plants.usda.gov -2

3.2 Change in Population Size Decrease in population due to loss in http://www.altnature.com/gallery/aletris. 2

3.3 Habitat Specialization moist or dry peat and sandy soils, sandy http://www.natureserve.org 0

Abundance Total 10

Habitat

4 Habitat Vulnerability habitat destruction is causing decline in http://www.altnature.com/gallery/aletris. 12

4.1 Habitat Acreage is being reduced by 50% http://www.altnature.com/gallery/aletris 2

4.2 Habitat Fragmentation small patches in multiple states http://plants.usda.gov 2

4.3 Soil Type multiple types of soil http://www.natureserve.org 0

4.4 Threats (List) rapid development, land used for recreat http://www.natureserve.org 2

Habitat Total 18

How Much is Needed

5 Demand 500 pounds annually (85% from the wild) http://www.natureserve.org 4

5.1 Yield unknown 0

5.2 Substitutes peppermint, chamomile http://www.frontiercoop.com -2

5.3 Cultivation Status collected in wild, very minimal cultivation http://www.natureserve.org 0

Demand Total 2

Overall Total 40

Figure 2: Sample student

score sheet. “Knowledge”

and “Source” columns have

been truncated

SUCCCESSES Botanical Knowledge: All 56 students indicated that their knowledge

about their plants increased through the at-risk assignment, including

several who seemed surprised that botany was of value: “I learned that

botany is important economically, ecologically, and medicinally.” (2009)

“I learned that Botany isn’t just memorizing the phylum of certain plants.

Botany can be used to research and save plants.” (2007)

“I learned that botany is a complex science and that many scientists do

not spend time of the basic biological elements on many plants.” (2009)

Authentic Experience: The vast majority of students indicated that they

worked harder knowing that the information was going to be used for a

non-profit group and presented at a scientific meeting: “It pushed me to

work harder and make sure that every answer I came up with was

actually backed by more than one reliable source.” (2009)

“Since I knew my research was going to be used on a larger scale, other

than just a grade, I made sure all my research was documented and

correct.” (2007)

The three students who commented that they did not work harder seemed

a bit offended at being asked, “Not really. I conducted research like I

would for any of my other classes.” (2009).

Data Skills: All plant taxonomy students indicated the assignment

increased their skills in “scientific information processing and

communication” and of the 56 students in three classes, all except one

(already “confident in my research abilities”) reported specific lessons

learned about databases and finding information: “It is very difficult to

filter through them [database] to find legitimate information” (2009)

“I don’t like using databases. They seem poorly organized.” (2012)

“The internet has a large amount of dead ends” (2009)

“It takes a lot of time, effort, and cramped fingers” (2007)

Conservation Use: While scoring plants for the United Plant Savers

Master List, the student scores were not directly used, but the background

research by students, especially documented links, was definitely

considered.

Student Recommended: 35 of 37 students in 2009 and 2012 responded

that they would recommend future classes complete the project: “I would

recommend this project to another plant science class, because it provides

insight into what plants are at risk, why those plants are vulnerable, and

how those plants are used, while also teaching the student how to find and

utilize “good” information. It combines many aspects of scientific

research and development into a single assignment.” (2012)