Evaluation of Trial Garden Practices

EVALUATION OF TRIAL GARDEN PRACTICES

AT PUBLIC HORTICULTURE INSTITUTIONS

Sarah Leach Smith

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Public Horticulture

Spring 2015

ProQuest Number: 1596869

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 1596869

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

EVALUATION OF TRIAL GARDEN PRACTICES

AT PUBLIC HORTICULTURE INSTITUTIONS

Sarah Leach Smith

Approved: Robert E. Lyons, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee

Approved: Blake C. Meyers, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Plant and Soil Science

Approved: Mark Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Approved: James G. Richards, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude to the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Robert Lyons, Dr. Matt Taylor, Ms. Diane Blazek, and Mr. Richard

Hawke, for their unwavering support and guidance over the past two years. It has been my great honor to get to know each of you and learn from your expertise. I am especially grateful to Dr. Lyons for being a wonderful leader of the Program and travel companion, and to Dr. Brian Trader and Marnie Conley for stepping up as Interim Program Co-

Leaders and showing us all how to embrace change with grace. I would like to thank the

Longwood Foundation, Longwood Gardens, and the University of Delaware for the opportunity to be a Longwood Graduate Fellow. The past two years have been exceptionally valuable on both a personal and professional level.

I want to thank my classmates, Kevin Phillip Williams, Sara Helm Wallace,

Bryan Thompsonowak, Gary Shanks, and Felicia Chua, for enriching my time in the

Program. I have had some of the best experiences of my life in this Program, and I am so glad I met all of you. I am sincerely grateful to my parents for their constant cheerleading as I follow my passion and pursue my career, and my NC State Co-Horts, who inspire me daily with their accomplishments. Most importantly, infinite thanks to my husband,

Andrew Smith, for embarking on this adventure with me and pouring a glass of wine when it was needed most.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………...……………..... vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………...…...... ………… vii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………...………... xi

Chapter

1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………..… 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………... 7

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………….. 13

Research Methods………………………………………………...…….. 13 Human Subject Review Board.………………………...…………..….... 13 Exploratory Survey………………………………………………..……. 14 Final Survey……………………………………………………...……... 15 Interviews……………………………………………………...………... 16

4 RESULTS…………………………………………………………...….. 18

Survey Results………………………………………………………..… 18 Interview Results……………………………………………………….. 32 Additional Interviews………………………………………………..….. 47

5 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………... 59

The Evolution of Field Trials………………………………………...…. 59 Potential Issues with Bias…………………………………………..…... 61 Not All Plant Trials are Created Equal……………………………..…... 63 Turning a Challenge into an Opportunity………………………………. 65 Playing to Their Strengths…………………………………...………….. 69 Looking Ahead…………………………………………...……………... 70

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..... 74

Appendix

A EXPLORATORY SURVEY QUESTIONS……………………………. 77 B EXPLORATORY SURVEY RESULTS………………………………. 79 C FINAL SURVEY QUESTIONS……………………………………...... 88 D FINAL SURVEY RESULTS………………………………………...... 98 E INTERVIEW QUESTIONS…………………………………………... 140 F IRB LETTER OF EXEMPTION……………………………………... 141 G ORAL CONSENT FORM…...... 142

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Interview Institutions and Participants………………………………...... 17

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Distribution of respondent answers (N=266) to the survey question, “Which of the following best describes your employer?”……………… 22

Figure 4.2: Distribution of respondent answers (N=211) to the survey question, “Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a variety display garden?”……...………... 22

Figure 4.3: Distribution of respondent answers (N=161) to the survey question, “For how long has your employer been involved in active plant trials?”..…... 23

Figure 4.4: Distribution of respondent answers (N=160) to the survey question, “How has the size of your plant trialing program changed in the last 5 years?”……………………..…………………………………………… 23

Figure 4.5: For respondents who answered that their employer is involved with neither active plant trials nor variety display gardens (N=50, this is the distribution of their responses to the survey question, “Which of the following best describes your employer?”…………………...…………. 24

Figure 4.6: Distribution of respondent answers (N=15) to the survey question, “What is the typical process that your employer undergoes when preparing a plant for commercial release?”………………………………………..... 24

Figure 4.7: Distribution of respondent answers (N=13) to the survey question, “What sources for outside evaluation do you use the most? Please rank in order by dragging each choice to its appropriate ranking, with 1 being the most used and 4 being the least used/not used at all.”……….……………...... 25

Figure 4.8: Distribution of respondent answers (N=12) to the survey question, “How has the amount of plant material sent for private or public trial at public gardens or arboreta changed in the past 5 years?” … …………….….... 25

Figure 4.9: Distribution of respondent answers (N=13) to the survey question, “What is the primary motivation for your employer to be involved in plant evaluation programs?”…..…………………………………………….... 26

Figure 4.10: Distribution of respondent answers (N=235) to the survey question, “To what extent do you agree with the following statement, ‘It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta’? Please rank on

vii

this scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 being ‘strongly agree.’” ………………………………………………...…...... 26

Figure 4.11: Distribution of respondent answers (N=198) to the survey question, “Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission?”………………...……………………... 27

Figure 4.12: Distribution of respondent answers (N=232) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?”…………………………….………………..…... 27

Figure 4.13: Respondent answers (Other, N=12) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?”…….…………………………………………………………. 28

Figure 4.14: Distribution of respondent answers (N=229) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?”…………………………………….……...…….. 28

Figure 4.15: Distribution of respondent answers (N=222) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”...... 29

Figure 4.16: Distribution of respondent answers (N=223) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”……………………………………...…... 29

Figure 4.17: Distribution of respondent answers (N=228) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens and arboreta?...... 30

Figure 4.18: Distribution of respondent answers (N=225) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens and arboreta?”……………………………...………………….. 31

Figure 4.19: Distribution of respondent answers (N=228) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”…………………………….………………….…...…….. 31

viii

Figure 4.20: Distribution of respondent answers (N=225) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”……………………….…….. 32

Figure 4.21: The Trial Garden at Longwood Gardens in Kennett Square, PA (Photo courtesy of Longwood Gardens)…………………………….…….……. 50

Figure 4.22: Guests visiting the Trial Garden at Longwood Gardens may take a paper ballot and pencil from this voting station and vote on their favorite plants. Completed ballots may be submitted through the Drop Box, located on the left below the “ballots” box. An interpretive sign (right) explains to guests what the trial garden is and why their vote is important……..…..……... 51

Figure 4.23: The Comparison Trials at the Gardens at Ball in West Chicago, Illinois feature Ball selections alongside competitors’ introductions to see how they perform. (Photo courtesy of Ball Horticultural Company)..………. 52

Figure 4.24: The Sun Evaluation Garden at Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, Illinois…………………………………………………………………... 52

Figure 4.25: This is the interpretive signage at the Sun Evaluation Garden at Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, Illinois……………………..……...………. 53

Figure 4.26: Interpretive signage for the woody plant breeding program at the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, Illinois. ………….…………………………..…….. 53

Figure 4.27: Display gardens at Terra Nova Nurseries in Canby, Oregon are beautiful and functional: they serve as a powerful marketing tool to Terra Nova’s clients.………...... 54

Figure 4.28: Comparison trials at Terra Nova Nurseries compare Terra Nova selections with other cultivars already on the market.…………………..…………. 55

Figure 4.29: The Proven Winners trial garden at The Oregon Garden in Silverton, Oregon…………………………………………………………………... 55

Figure 4.30: The Ball Horticulture trial garden at The Oregon Garden in Silverton, Oregon…………………………………………………………………... 56

Figure 4.31: Annual color trials at the JC Raulston Arboretum in Raleigh, NC not only provide valuable data, but also a beautiful backdrop for a summer photo……………………………………………………………………. 56

Figure 4.32: At Mt. Cuba Center’s Trial garden, a trial of Baptisia (right) is finishing up, while a new trial of Phlox has just been installed (center)…….…… 57

Figure 4.33: Interpretive signage has recently been added to the trial garden. This sign tells visitors about the genus Baptisia, which is presently being evaluated in the trial garden………..…………………………………………….... 58

Figure 5.1: This screenshot of the National Plant Trials Database (www.planttrials.org) demonstrates how plant performance data over time is collected at several different testing sites across the country……...... 72

Figure 5.2: Breeding companies like Terra Nova Nurseries use public garden trial results to help market their plants………………………………………. 73

ABSTRACT

Trial gardens are research tools for the evaluation of a diverse array of different plants, depending upon the objectives of the researcher. Many institutions have trial gardens, and each has its own, specific reasons for including them in their research programs. Plant breeding companies, commercial growers, colleges and universities, and public gardens and arboreta are all trial garden stakeholders, with each a key player in the evaluation process from initial plant introduction to homeowner installation.

Through both quantitative and qualitative methods, this current research aimed to create a holistic view of trial gardens and what they mean to the horticulture industry, while identifying the specific role that public gardens and arboreta can play. Survey data offered insights into current trial garden trends and helped to identify advantages and disadvantages of different trial garden stakeholders. The majority (54%) of survey respondents indicated that the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta was the opportunity to educate visitors about the best plants to grow in their region, and 74% of respondents agreed that it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission. However, respondents also indicated a decline in the amount of plant material being sent to public gardens for trialing in the last five years. Interviews with stakeholder organizations shed light on this recent industry shift and helped to identify a new model for the future.

Two levels of trial garden stakeholders emerged from the research. The first, breeding companies and commercial growers, conducted trials for a national, wholesale market, while the second, universities and public gardens, primarily focused on a regional, retail market. The process of trialing traditional annual bedding plants compared with herbaceous perennials has several distinctions as well, including minimum evaluation time and space required. Establishing and accommodating these differences helped to recognize ways in which public garden trials can have the most effective influence on the retail market. A recommendation for collaboration between public gardens and retail garden centers was presented herein based on key findings from interviews and survey results. Because visitors were often frustrated that they could not find public garden trial winners at their local garden center, a proposition arose that encouraged partnerships between public gardens, local retail garden centers, and local nurseries. Together, these organizations can grow, promote, and sell trial winners while boosting the local green industry.

Ultimately, this elucidated the connection among the various trial garden stakeholders while offering strategies for public gardens and arboreta to play a more meaningful role in, and have a positive influence on, their regional horticulture industry.

xii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Plant trials have taken place since the beginning of civilization. As early as 2000

BC, explorers set out into uncharted lands to find and bring back plants of value. Seeds were often sent back on ships to find out how they would perform in the mother country.

Likewise, travellers would bring plants with them in efforts to surround themselves with the trees and fruits that they knew and loved. This practice continues today, although in different ways. In addition to exploring for new edible plants, “plant hunters” set out to find specimens with unique healing powers, disease resistance for improved agricultural crops, unique aesthetics, and rare, endangered species to maintain biodiversity (Janick,

2007).

In the past 150 years, formal ornamental plant trials have been established worldwide to identify and evaluate different plant characteristics, including yield, cold hardiness, insect or disease resistance, garden performance, and many others. In England, plant trials have been integral to the Royal Horticultural Society’s mission since 1860.

RHS Garden Wisley features ornamental, vegetable and fruit trials, and continues to take great pride in its ability to demonstrate the best garden plants for the public’s use (Royal

Horticultural Society, 2013).

In North America, the All-America Selections program has played a central role as the oldest and most established plant trialing organization. Proposed and founded in

1932 by W. Ray Hastings, the All-America Selections program was to be a resource for gardeners seeking new and improved plant varieties. A network of trial gardens was implemented across the United States to provide a comprehensive representation of all possible growing conditions. New flower and vegetable varieties are assessed throughout the growing season by experienced, impartial judges, and winners are announced each year. Presently, there are 62 AAS trial grounds in the U.S. and Canada (AAS, 2013).

Plant trials are conducted by a range of institutions for many reasons. At the 2013

International Trials Conference, held at Longwood Gardens in Kennett Square, PA, the participants included plant breeders, seed company representatives, and personnel from nurseries, universities, public gardens, and the landscape industry. Breeders are eager to see how their newly developed plants will perform at trial locations, in hopes that a commercial grower or plant marketing organization will want to start using these plants for retail and wholesale markets. Growers and retailers want to have exciting, new plants to offer at retail garden centers and to landscape installation companies. Universal end goals are to put new and improved plants into the hands of consumers and make a profit.

For universities, plant trials serve a slightly different purpose: they help fulfill many universities’ research mission (Hockenberry Meyer, 2010). University gardens especially benefit from plant trials, given that many of the universities conducting trials have land-grant institutional status. Their responsibility is to make knowledge gained by research openly accessible to the public, and the research conducted at the university’s garden or arboretum accomplishes this goal by providing access and through publications.

Public gardens and arboreta attract a wide cross-section of the general public, which is exactly the audience that breeders, growers, and landscapers want to target. Not only do trial gardens at public horticulture institutions introduce people to new plants, but they also educate their audience about plants that grow best in their region. Eighty percent of public garden visitors come with the goal to learn something new about gardening, and this is the perfect audience for a trial garden (Hamilton, 2001). Seven of the All-America Selections’ 50 trial gardens are at public gardens. In addition to trial gardens, All-America Selections has almost 200 display gardens, about 90% of which are located at public gardens (Blazek, 2013). Unlike active trials, display gardens exhibit past

All-America Selections trial winners and do not collect performance data. Though not trials, display gardens successfully increase awareness and educate garden visitors about new plants and their regional performance features.

Plant trialing programs categorically take the form of “breeder trials” and

“consumer trials” (Pangborn, 2012). Breeder trials collect specific types of data requested by the breeder, and results are regularly sent back to the breeder to help determine potential for commercial release. The breeder, a commercial grower, or an independent evaluator typically conducts these trials. Data categories may include flower quality or quantity, height, spread, uniformity, and foliage quality. The data helps breeders compare their selection with cultivars currently on the market and decide if the plants being evaluated are an improvement or something different. The ultimate goal is to release new and improved plants into the market that have high sales potential. Consumer trials shift the focus away from production and toward the consumer. Consumer trials inform and educate the consumer about plant cultivar diversity and identify those cultivars with

regionally high performance qualities. These trials are most frequently found at public gardens, because public visitation is high and education is a significant part of their mission (Blazek, 2013).

One of the best examples of a consumer trial in the U.S. is Chicago Botanic

Garden (CBG) in Glencoe, Illinois. The trial formally evaluates perennial herbaceous and woody plant genera, comparing different species, cultivars, and varieties within a genus.

Cultivars and varieties featured in the trial are already available on the market. Some are new introductions, but some have been available for many years. All trial-related results and notes are available for download on the CBG website. They also regularly publish results in consumer-focused periodicals such as Fine Gardening magazine (Chicago

Botanic Garden, 2013), which serves as a mechanism to get information directly to consumers. Another renowned public garden trial program is at Mt. Cuba Center in

Hockessin, Delaware. Current plant evaluation information is readily available on their website, and consumers may opt to be on the trial garden mailing list. The trial garden itself is centrally located on the grounds of Mt. Cuba Center and may be easily visited by anyone coming to the garden (Mt. Cuba Center, 2013).

Colleges and universities are a distinctive participant in plant trial programs, as they typically conduct both breeder and consumer trials. University trial programs evaluate plants received from breeders and send detailed performance data in return, which encompasses the goals of a breeder trial. These data are also published and disseminated to retailers, growers, and extension agents (Armitage and Green, 2001); in fact, several universities have created their own programs that utilize data collected from their trials to identify, promote, and market plants that perform the best in their region.

Examples include “Oklahoma Proven” out of Oklahoma State University, “Arkansas

Select” at the University of Arkansas, and “Plant Select” at Colorado State University.

These programs fulfill goals of a consumer trial, as they aim to inform consumers about plant performance in their region. Education remains a major aspect of university-based plant trial programs. Trial gardens can be used in a variety of educational ways, from an undergraduate plant identification class to a horticultural student internship. This aspect of university gardens is unique, in that it falls outside the realm of both breeder and consumer trial goals.

Some plant trials have garnered so much attention that they have become destinations themselves. One example is the University of Georgia’s (UGA) Trial

Garden, which was started in 1982 by Drs. Allan Armitage and Michael Dirr. Although it is not part of a botanical garden, the Trial Gardens at UGA are open to the public and attract hundreds of visitors each year to their campus location (Armitage and Green,

2001). Another well-known site is the Gardens at Ball in West Chicago, Illinois. This location is the evaluation and testing ground for Ball Horticultural Company, a group of breeders, researchers, seed and vegetative producers, and distribution companies that span the globe. The gardens, which started as a simple row-based trial garden in 1933, now consist of over 9 acres of annuals, perennials, cut flowers, and vegetables. Open to the public by appointment only, the Gardens at Ball have also won awards from the

Perennial Plant Association and the Illinois Landscape Contractors Association (Ball

Horticultural Company, 2013).

Despite the variety of institutions that hold plant trials and their assorted missions and goals, this research aimed to create a holistic view of plant trial programs in an effort

to inform each stakeholder – breeding companies, commercial growers, colleges and universities, and public gardens and arboreta – of the importance of not only their role, but the roles that the other shareholders play in the horticulture industry. In addition, specific attention was paid to the identification and communication of the role of public gardens and arboreta with regards to trial gardens and plant evaluation programs.

The objectives of this research were multi-faceted, and included:

• Identifying the types of trials currently taking place

• Documenting how evaluation goals differ based on the institution type

• Articulating common challenges facing trial programs

• Identifying the role of each stakeholder in the plant evaluation process

(breeder, marketer, grower, wholesaler, retailer, university, public garden,

consumer)

• Identifying the importance of public gardens and arboreta as a location for

trial gardens and plant evaluation programs, both directly and indirectly, in

the larger context of the horticulture industry

• Generating ideas for how public gardens and arboreta can be most

effective and relevant to the plant evaluation process

Ultimately, conclusions drawn as a result of this research aimed to inform and connect all of the stakeholders in plant evaluation programs to ensure success of everyone involved, from the plant breeder down to the consumer.

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Trial gardens play many roles in the horticulture industry. For each industry sector, including breeding companies, commercial growers, landscapers, public horticulture institutions, and colleges and universities, plant trials serve a different purpose. Understanding the roles of plant trials throughout the horticulture industry may help keep each sector informed about what each is doing and provide for more opportunities for collaboration.

Plant trial programs are an integral part of the plant breeding industry. In fact, breeders go through several rounds of trials in order to have enough information to either release or dismiss a selection (Bielaczyc, 2012). For example, Terra Nova Nurseries in

Canby, Oregon recently introduced their Kudos™ Agastache series; short height, cold hardiness, and disease resistance characterize this series. The process to achieve and release this new series involved several generations of breeding followed by three years of trialing (Pavlich, 2014). To begin the trialing process, breeders choose their favorite plants from the breeding phase to enter into the “prestart” phase: during this phase of trialing, apical buds of the mother plants are screened for about 30 viruses and pathogens in the Terra Nova labs. Once plant selections prove their cleanliness, production trials begin. The production phase involves growing the plants outside in both containers and in the ground, and in both sun and shade. Selection teams meet regularly throughout the

growing season to discuss the progress; some of the plants are dismissed, while others get advanced to the naming and introduction phases (Pavlich, 2014). Finally, named and patented plants are trialed at other external locations to provide additional performance data in a new setting.

External trials are also known as field trials, and they have traditionally played an important role for growers. In the past, breeding companies would send plant material to university gardens to grow and evaluate, and results informed growers’ decision to purchase and produce the plants. However, this relationship has recently experienced a significant shift (Hardie, 2014). Trials are now conducted more often at commercial growers and less at universities and public gardens. Diane Blazek, Executive Director of

All-America Selections, theorized that, by cutting out the university and public garden field trials, breeders and growers can work more closely: growers who are trialing a breeder’s new plants will be able to directly see how it performs and know exactly how to grow it once it is ready to be produced for the retail market. Scott Rusch, Product

Development Director for PanAmerican Seed, elaborates on Blazek’s theory, believing that commercial growers use their trials as a sales tool to demonstrate to retail customers that they have a superior product and that they use these trials to ensure that they will only grow plants that perform well (Hardie, 2014).

Retail customers are not the only clients that growers can attract with their trial programs. Landscape contractors are emerging as significant clientele for growers, and they are looking to growers for information about and recommendations for new plant varieties. With more landscapers looking for sustainable perennials and native plants,

growers have the opportunity to educate them about their trials and newly marketed plants that may better serve their needs (Hardie, 2014).

While this breeder-grower-landscaper partnership sounds like an ideal balance, there are disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage of a grower trial is the lack of public exposure. Field trials at public gardens allow the general public to become familiar with the new plants and see how they perform in a real-world garden setting, exposed to the weather conditions of the region. Similarly, public garden trials allow the public gardens themselves to see how the plants perform and possibly incorporate them into future designs (Hardie, 2014).

Another disadvantage of grower trials is the missed opportunity for marketing that many college and university field trials offer. In fact, university plant marketing programs have emerged countrywide. For example, the University of Georgia (UGA) Trial Garden, in collaboration with the State Botanical Garden of Georgia, started its Georgia Garden

Gold Medal Winners program in 1994 (Armitage and Green, 2001). This program promotes high-performing ornamental plants to Georgia’s green industry. Additionally, the UGA Trial Garden gives its own awards for superior plant performance in the trials: the Classic City Award winners are presented on the UGA Trial Garden website and are said to be “equivalent to the Oscar and Tony rolled up as one” (Ruter, 2014).

The University of Arkansas and Oklahoma State University have also created significant marketing programs for their states’ green industries – Arkansas Select and

Oklahoma Proven, respectively. Arkansas Select was born in 1999 as an objective of

University of Arkansas’s new, statewide plant evaluation program (Lindstrom et al.,

2001). Plant trials occur at three different locations around the state, and data acquired

from evaluation sites are used to inform organizers how the plants perform in the various environmental conditions. Plants that prove successful at all three evaluation sites are then included in the Arkansas Select program and are marketed to Arkansas’s retail industry (Lindstrom et al., 2001). Similarly, Oklahoma State University’s Oklahoma

Proven, which also launched in 1999, makes plant recommendations based on plant performance throughout Oklahoma. In addition to plant performance, selection criteria also include availability in the trade, noninvasiveness, ease of propagation, and low cultural input. Once a plant has been chosen for Oklahoma Proven, marketing materials include posters, billboards, pot stakes, and plant tags with the Oklahoma Proven logo

(Anella et al., 2001). The program proved itself to be a valuable tool for Oklahoma’s green industry, and consumers seem to appreciate the plant recommendations as well.

Oklahoma’s garden retailers report that Oklahoma Proven increased sales, and one nursery stated that they experienced an 81% increase in sales of Oklahoma Proven plants.

Both Arkansas Select and Oklahoma Proven exist today and continue to make recommendations based on their universities’ plant trial programs.

Obviously, marketing is not the only value to field trials at colleges and universities. University trials fulfill the research mission of land-grant universities while providing an educational resource to students, faculty, and the community (Hockenberry

Meyer et al., 2010). Trial gardens, such as the UGA Trial Garden, provide students with the opportunity to learn about “plot layout planning, statistical design, plant maintenance, data collection and analysis, and professional communication of trial results” (Arnold et al., 2001). Some universities may even design courses or projects around the trials as a way to integrate them directly into the curriculum. For example, an undergraduate

landscape maintenance class may be the perfect occasion to help with trial bed installation and maintenance. Students can also hone technical writing skills by assisting with an article for a peer-reviewed journal such as HortTechnology or gain experience in public speaking by giving a presentation about the outcomes of the trials (Arnold et al.,

2001).

A focus on student participation with university trial gardens is especially timely, considering the changes in consumer trends as the Millennial generation, ages 18 to 34, moves into adulthood. A recent report from the National Gardening Association shows that Millennials are the fastest growing segment of food gardeners. This means that this generation wants to garden, and they are the future of the green industry. Some of the challenges that accompany Millennials include their tight connection to technology such as smartphones, lack of financial stability, and residential location in small, urban spaces

(Polanz, 2014). For example, Millennial consumers are researching products online in order to make an informed buying decision (Rotella, 2014). In this way, plant trial data is more important than ever, because Millennial consumers are more likely to consult it than prior generations of gardeners. Like the generations before them, Millennial consumers are focused on acquiring a high quality product from their garden center (VanWingerden,

2014). Because of this, it is crucial for breeders, growers, and retailers to make sure they are providing plants that will perform in the home garden. The ultimate goal for these stakeholders is to help the consumer achieve success and make them into repeat customers. While consumers are willing to do their research and try new things, it is the responsibility of the green industry to present quality, well-evaluated plants (Sheorn,

2014). Extensive plant trialing is how this is achieved.

Public gardens and arboreta are uniquely positioned to provide the connection between plant trials and the consumer. Visitors enjoy the entertainment, diversion, or relaxation aspect of visiting a garden or arboretum, but most of them also come to learn something (Hamilton and DeMarrais, 2001). “A [public] garden should be beautiful, but it must also be useful and provide services. Providing extensive educational and informational opportunities is one way to be relevant and useful to a community” (Smith,

1989). One way that public gardens can educate novice and avid gardeners alike is to provide a resource for which plants grow best in their region, which a trial garden can deliver.

Literature indicates that trial gardens and public horticulture institutions are a natural fit. Outcomes from this research will fill in the gap of literature about the importance and effect of trial gardens at public horticulture institutions.

Chapter 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Methods

Data were collected using both quantitative and qualitative methods. A preliminary, exploratory survey was administered in December 2013, and a second and final survey was distributed in May 2014. Surveys were created and conducted using

Qualtrics (Qualtrics, LLC, Provo, Utah), which is an online survey software tool licensed by the University of Delaware. Qualitative data were collected through a series of in- depth interviews with 12 institutions across the U.S., including plant breeding companies

(Ball Horticulture, Sakata Seed, and Terra Nova Nurseries), commercial growers (Costa

Farms), universities (The UGA Trial Gardens and JC Raulston Arboretum at NC State

University), and public horticulture institutions including public gardens and arboreta

(Chicago Botanic Garden, The Morton Arboretum, Longwood Gardens, Mt. Cuba

Center, and The Oregon Garden)(Table 3.1).

Human Subject Review Board

The primary investigator for this research completed the University of Delaware

Human Subjects Review Board (HSRB) training in the fall of 2013 and received certification. All research methods presented herein were conducted according to HSRB

guidelines. All survey and interview questions were approved by HSRB and subsequently given “exempt” status.

Exploratory Survey

This survey (Appendices A and B) was distributed to establish a baseline of knowledge regarding plant trials at public gardens. Results from this survey helped to identify participants for a follow-up survey, as well as highlight topical aspects in need of further investigation. This survey was initially distributed on December 2 and was open from December 2 to December 9, 2013 and canvassed a diverse audience of international horticulture professionals from public gardens and arboreta, seed companies, colleges and universities, commercial growers, and plant development companies. The survey was sent to the email lists of two American Public Gardens Association (APGA) Professional

Sections, including the Colleges and Universities section and the Horticulture,

Greenhouse, and Facilities section. The survey was also sent to the email lists of AAS trial garden managers and attendees of the 2013 International Trials Conference, held at

Longwood Gardens from September 16 to 20. Questions examined the importance of trial gardens to public horticulture institutions, and sought to identify any advantages and disadvantages. The complete survey can be found in Appendix A. Survey links were emailed to 519 people, but then became open access; of the 249 people who started the survey, and 218 completed it.

Final Survey

The second, more in-depth survey (Appendices C and D) targeted an international audience having public horticulture and trial garden affiliations. It was initially distributed on May 6 and was open from May 6 to May 18, 2014. Questions focused on the kinds of trials being conducted, where results are published, and the accessibility and interpretation of the plant evaluation program to garden visitors. Additionally, the survey utilized the more advanced functionalities of Qualtrics by incorporating question blocks that would only appear if the survey participant answered questions in a certain way.

Question blocks were specific to types of employers (i.e. public garden, university, plant breeding company, etc.) and whether or not the employer conducted plant trials. This survey also identified potential research interviewees, who were ultimately selected based on the diversity of their plant trial program. This survey was sent to the same two email lists of APGA Professional sections as the exploratory survey. The final survey was also sent to the email list of AAS trial garden managers, as well as to participants of the 2013

International Trials Conference and the 2014 California Spring Trials, which were held from April 5 to April 10, 2014. Survey links were emailed to 556 recipients, which then became open access, as the link was subsequently distributed and posted through a variety of forums, including Working Groups of the American Society of Horticultural

Science, as well as undocumented, informal networks of horticulture professionals who forwarded the link to colleagues. Of the 289 surveys started, 229 were completed.

Participants were guaranteed confidentiality with a pre-exit option to voluntarily provide their identifying information at the end if they were amenable to further correspondence

from the thesis author; 163 of 228 responses to this question answered positively to future contact.

Interviews

Interview candidates were identified from final survey results and input from the thesis committee members. Fourteen total interviews were conducted at 12 different U.S. horticultural institutions. To ensure a range of industry insight, five of the institutions were public gardens or arboreta, two were universities or university-affiliated, four were breeding and nursery companies, and one was a commercial grower. At each institution, individuals who worked closely with the trial garden or plant evaluation programs were identified and contacted regarding willingness to participate in an interview. Interviews were conducted in-person, when possible, as well as via telephone and email. Interview questions were sent in advance when requested.

Institution Name Title Longwood Gardens Dr. Matt Taylor Research Manager Ball Horticulture Susan Schmitz Trials And Education Manager Jim Nau Manager, The Gardens at Ball Chicago Botanic Garden Richard Hawke Plant Evaluation Manager The Morton Arboretum Joseph Rothleutner Tree Improvement Specialist Terra Nova Nurseries Dan Heims President The Oregon Garden Ty Boland Regional Horticulture Manager JC Raulston Arboretum at Mark Weathington Director

NC State University Bernadette Clark Research Specialist Mt. Cuba Center George Coombs Trial Garden Manager Sakata Seed America Bob Croft Trials Coordinator All-America Selections Ron Cramer Board President Costa Farms Angelica Cretu Director of Research & Development UGA Trial Garden Dr. Allan Armitage Co-Founder and Former Director Dr. John Ruter Director

Table 3.1. Interview Institutions and Participants.

Chapter 4

RESULTS

Survey Results

This section highlights the most significant survey responses. Complete survey results are in Appendix D.

To identify the horticulture industry sectors represented in the survey results, all survey participants were asked to identify that sector which best characterized them

(Figure 4.1). The top response was college or university (47%), followed by public garden or arboretum (23%). Additional employer answer choices included landscape industry and professional organization, such as the American Society for Horticulture

Science, American Public Gardens Association, and AmericanHort; however, no respondents selected these choices. Respondents were also asked about their employer’s involvement in plant trial programs (Figure 4.2). Over half of the responses to this question (55%) indicated that their employers participated in both active plant trials and new variety displays. Several respondents selected “none of the above,” and their responses will be addressed later.

Respondents who indicated an involvement with active plant trial programs were then presented with a line of questioning specifically related to their trials. These questions aimed to establish benchmark data for programs already in progress, with

responses indicating that over half (52%) have been involved in active plant trials for over 25 years (Figure 4.3). Additionally, more than half indicated that their program is growing: 54% of respondents indicated that the size of their plant trialing program has increased in the past 5 years (Figure 4.4).

Fifty out of the 266 respondents who began the survey indicated no involvement in either plant trials or variety displays, roughly 19%. The majority of these responses were either from the college and university sector (34%) or public gardens and arboreta

(26%)(Figure 4.5).

Subsequently, survey participants were asked different questions based on their response to “Which of the following best describes your employer?” (Figure 4.1) New questions were specific to the industry sector and aimed to gain a better understanding of the topic in the context of each sector. Breeding company employees were asked about their typical protocol for preparing a plant for commercial release (Figure 4.6). The majority (87%) of responses communicated that the breeders started with private, in- house trials followed by a private trial at an outside source, then commercial release. To follow up, the breeding company employees were asked to rank their sources for outside evaluations (Figure 4.7). The overwhelming majority (12 out of 13 respondents) ranked commercial growers as their most used source for outside evaluation (in the first place slot), while public gardens and arboreta ranked lower (3rd and 4th, respectively). When asked how the quantity of plant material sent to public gardens or arboreta for trial has changed in the past five years, 42% of respondents answered that it had decreased (Figure

4.8). Commercial growers were asked about the motivations behind their participation in active plant trials (Figure 4.9). The majority (54%) indicated a preference to be at the

forefront of new plant introductions; other reasons included having control over the quality of the trials to help the grower’s reputation in the industry (23%) and being convenient for wholesale buyers to find out about the latest plants and place their order at the same time (15%).

To complete the survey, all respondents were asked questions related to trial programs at public gardens and arboreta. The first of these questions dealt with the importance of having plant trials at public gardens and arboreta (Figure 4.10). The majority of respondents agreed with the statement, “It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta.” In fact, 74% of survey participants thought that it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission (Figure 4.11). Survey participants were subsequently asked about the advantages of having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges and universities, and commercial growers (Figure 4.12). Over half of the respondents (54%) agreed that the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta is the opportunity to educate the public about plant trials and which plants grow best in their area. For the choice “other,” 12 participants added their own reasons why trials at public gardens and arboreta would be advantageous (Figure 4.13). When asked to identify the main disadvantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta, 35% of respondents believed that, over time, a public garden might need to reallocate resources for displays and collections, which would decrease the priority for trials. Similarly, 27% of respondents answered that the garden or arboretum would manage more for beauty and therefore may not identify the best genetic or marketability qualities (Figure 4.14).

An analogous set of questions regarding advantages and disadvantages was posed to each of the other plant trial stakeholders – breeding companies, commercial growers, and colleges and universities. A majority (61%) of survey participants agreed that the main advantage to having trials at breeding companies was that new plant material is the highest priority of the breeder, so other items would not reprioritize the trials; the main disadvantage of having trials at breeding companies was identified (52%) to be the possible bias of the breeder in making selections of their own plants (Figure 4.15 and

4.16). For commercial growers, the main advantage (44%) of conducting plants trials was having the opportunity to see new plants growing and decide whether or not to produce them for future sales (Figure 4.17). However, 58% of respondents also saw this as a possible disadvantage: commercial growers may not give as much attention to lesser- known crops in favor of focusing on known, top-selling plants (Figure 4.18). Finally, colleges and universities were considered advantageous due to their ability to be completely unbiased in their judging (46%) as well as provide a valuable education and professional experience for students (27%)(Figure 4.19). However, the vast majority of respondents (73%) found that the primary disadvantage to having plant trials at colleges and universities was the possibility of limited funding, which would not allow for adequate staff and resources to maintain the trial garden (Figure 4.20).

14% 23% 5% Public garden or arboretum College or University 6% Breeding company

6% Commercial production Self-Employed Other

47%

Figure 4.1. Distribution of respondent answers (N=266) to the survey question, “Which of the following best describes your employer?”

34% Active plant trial program

Variety display garden

55% Both active plant trial AND variety display

11%

Figure 4.2. Distribution of respondent answers (N=211) to the survey question, “Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a variety display garden?”

>25 years 52%

16-25 years 12%

11-15 years 14%

6-10 years 14%

0-5 years 8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 4.3. Distribution of respondent answers (N=161) to the survey question, “For how long has your employer been involved in active plant trials?”

60% 54%

50%

40%

30% 25% 21% 20%

10%

0% It has increased It has decreased It has stayed the same

Figure 4.4. Distribution of respondent answers (N=160) to the survey question, “How has the size of your plant trialing program changed in the last 5 years?”

20% 26% Public garden or arboretum College or University Breeding company 14% Commercial production Self-Employed Other 4% 34% 2%

Figure 4.5. For respondents who answered that their employer is involved with neither active plant trials nor variety display gardens (N=50, this is the distribution of their responses to the survey question, “Which of the following best describes your employer?”

Other 7%

Only public trials, then commercial release 0%

Private trial in-house, followed by public trial at an outside source, then commercial release 0%

Private trial in-house, followed by private trial at an outside source, then commercial release 87%

Private trial in-house, then commercial release 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 4.6. Distribution of respondent answers (N=15) to the survey question, “What is the typical process that your employer undergoes when preparing a plant for commercial release?”

14 0 1 12 0

5 10 6 Private/Independent 7 Evaluator 8 College/Universtiy

3 6 12 Public Garden/Arboretum

4 4 Commercial Grower 7 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 4.7. Distribution of respondent answers (N=13) to the survey question, “What sources for outside evaluation do you use the most? Please rank in order by dragging each choice to its appropriate ranking, with 1 being the most used and 4 being the least used/not used at all.”

45% 42%

40%

35% 33%

30% 25% 25%

20%

15%

10%

0% It has increased It has decreased It has stayed the same

Figure 4.8. Distribution of respondent answers (N=12) to the survey question, “How has the amount of plant material sent for private or public trial at public gardens or arboreta changed in the past 5 years?”

Other 8%

We like to have control over the quality of the trials; we know that we will take care of the plants the best and that will help our reputation in the 23% industry It's convenient; wholesale buyers can ind out about the latest plants and then come to us to 15% place their order. It's like a one-stop shop!

We like to be at the forefront of new plant introductions 54%

It is an additional source of income; we charge breeders a fee if they want us to evaluate their 0% plants

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 4.9. Distribution of respondent answers (N=13) to the survey question, “What is the primary motivation for your employer to be involved in plant evaluation programs?”

35% 32%

30%

25% 23%

20% 17%

15% 12% 9% 10%

5% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 4.10. Distribution of respondent answers (N=235) to the survey question, “To what extent do you agree with the following statement, ‘It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta’? Please rank on this scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 being ‘strongly agree.’”

15%

11% Yes No Not sure

74%

Figure 4.11. Distribution of respondent answers (N=198) to the survey question, “Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission?”

Professional horticulturists conduct the trials 5%

Other 5%

It provides an unbiased evaluation of plants in the trial 22%

The opportunity to educate the public about plant trials and what plants grow best in their area 54%

Association with the garden or arboretum provides credibility to the trials 8%

Instant access to consumer insight 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 4.12. Distribution of respondent answers (N=232) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?

1. For internal use, to assure that new plants being added to the gardens are going to perform as desired 2. All of these are important advantages (mentioned 4 times) 3. Education and unbiased evaluations 4. To be relevant and a respectable public garden truly serving the public and connected to the greater industry 5. Helps to promote the industry at locations with many visitors 6. Ability to see mature specimens 7. Not something we are involved in 8. We are a University 9. Do not agree Figure 4.13. Respondent answers (Other, N=12) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?”

Other 7%

Over time, a public garden/arboretum might need to use space, time, and money for its own displays and 35% collections, giving less priority to the trial

The garden/arboreta may manage more for beauty and their own purposes, and therefore may not identify the 27% best genetic or marketability qualities

It is a public place, so new, unpatented materials can't be kept a secret 16%

Visitors could interfere with the trial plants 14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 4.14. Distribution of respondent answers (N=229) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?”

Less money spent transporting plant material to other locations 3%

Other 7%

New plant material is the breeding company's highest priority, so its plant trials will not fall victim to higher 61% priority items

The breeding company has total control over its plant materials and when they will be shown to the general 29% public

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 4.15. Distribution of respondent answers (N=222) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”

There may not be as much of a variety with which to compare if all of the plant material is coming from just 26% the breeding company

Other 7%

The trials may not necessarily be unbiased if the actual breeder of a certain selection is judging the trials 52%

No access to public opinion - breeding companies do not typically see any visitors and therefore get no 16% outside input

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 4.16. Distribution of respondent answers (N=223) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”

Commercial growers have a very thorough knowledge of all similar varieties currently on the market 13%

Commercial growers trial results based on marketability 13%

Professional horticulturists conduct the trial 2%

Commercial growers can offer private, inaccessible-to- the-public trials 8%

Other 6%

A commercial grower's trial garden is visited by retail store buyers and it a perfect sales tool to get those 14% varieties in with the major retailers

It is a good way for growers to determine whether or not they may want to produce those varieties for future 44% sales

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 4.17. Distribution of respondent answers (N=228) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens and arboreta?

No exposure of variety name to consumers as you might get in a public garden or arboretum 11%

Other 16%

Commercial growers may not give as much attention to smaller, lesser-known crops while focusing on just top- 58% selling classes

No access to consumer opinions 15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 4.18. Distribution of respondent answers (N=225) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens and arboreta?”

Other 5%

Plant trials at a college or university contribute to student education 27%

Association with the college or university provides credibility to the trials 21%

It provides an unbiased evaluation of plants in the trial 46%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 4.19. Distribution of respondent answers (N=228) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”

Other 12%

There may be cost associated with sending plant material to a college or university 9%

Limited funding may not allow for adequate staff to maintain the trial garden 73%

Having students around means the possibility of mistakes occurring or plants being damaged 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 4.20. Distribution of respondent answers (N=225) to the survey question, “What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens and arboreta?”

Interview Results

Longwood Gardens

Longwood Gardens, located in Kennett Square, PA, has been engaging in plant trials since the 1950s. It was around that time that Longwood’s first director, Dr. Russell

Seibert, started the research program, which included plant trials as well as plant exploration and plant breeding. One of the first genera in the breeding program was

Camellia, and specimens were brought in from all over the world to be trialed for ornamental value and used in crossing. The goal of these evaluations was to find plants suitable for display in the gardens at Longwood, but also for release into the commercial

market in an effort to increase the varieties available to the ornamental industry. At the same time, Longwood was conducting behind-the-scenes greenhouse and nursery trials, which still occur today (Taylor, 2014).

In 2013, Longwood Gardens created its first public formal trial garden area

(Figure 4.21). The idea was born almost five years earlier, as Longwood Research

Manager Dr. Matthew Taylor considered the idea of creating an in-ground trial similar to other regional trial gardens. Taylor offered information about the history of Longwood’s trials and shared his ideas for the future of the trial garden space.

The concept evolved to fit the needs and standards of Longwood Gardens, and was completed in time for Longwood to host the 2013 International Trials Conference.

Many planning sessions were involved throughout the duration of the implementation process. It was important that this new garden fulfill the specifications of Longwood

Gardens, including the discovery of new genera and cultivars for use in Longwood’s displays. Additionally, given the public location of the trial, Longwood wanted to include and engage its guests in the new garden by creating extensive interpretive signage and employing a guest-voting component. “[Longwood staff] can go down there and look and see what we like, but the guest now can give their feedback: maybe they have different preferences. We could use those plants more” (Taylor, 2014). Voting was open during the primary trial season, from July to September, with two different ballots to reflect the bloom times of different genera (Figure 4.22). Data from the guest voting results are shared publically on the Longwood Gardens website (longwoodgardens.org) and internally with the designers.

As Longwood selects specific plants to evaluate based on their design interests, they pay for most of the plant material that will be trialed. All of the plants are already trademarked and available on the retail market, with the exception of some selections in the genus Canna; Longwood Gardens has a Canna breeding program, and several of the trialed specimens on display are simply labeled as “Unnamed Canna.” Longwood has had a Canna-breeding program since 1967 with the goal of yielding cultivars that would be ideal for display in the Conservatory.

For the 2015 season, Taylor shared that Longwood would be conducting a different kind of trial. In each of the 26 beds in the trial garden, unique combination plantings will be trialed. These combinations were designed and named by one or more

Longwood staff members. For each design, up to 8 plants could be selected from a list of

163 plants, and guests will be able to vote on their favorite bed. This will be an interesting way for both Longwood’s designers and guests to see how different plants behave when planted together, rather than the traditional trial design that only focuses on individual plants.

Ball Horticulture

Ball Horticultural Company (Ball) began as a wholesale cut flower grower in

1905. Now located in West Chicago, Illinois, Ball is comprised of several companies and partners that make it a leader in the horticulture industry, employing experts in plant breeding, seed and vegetative production, research and development, and product distribution. Susan Schmitz, Trials and Education Manager, and Jim Nau, Manager of

The Gardens at Ball, provided insight into Ball and its trial gardens.

Ball started its trial gardens in 1933, and today the gardens consist of ten acres of both displays and trials for the latest annuals, perennials, cut flowers, vegetables, and shrubs. There are areas of comparison trials, including container trials, sun trials, and shade trials, which allow garden visitors to see a plethora of varieties that are all available through Ball Seed (Figure 4.23). Additionally, displays showcase previously trialed and released plants in a real-life garden setting, and they are installed amongst established plantings. One of Ball’s recent success stories, and a 2013 All-America Selection Flower

Award Winner, Echinacea ‘Cheyenne Spirit,’ is planted en masse to highlight the vibrant color palette of its flowers.

Both the comparison trials and display areas play important roles for Ball

Horticultural Company. The primary audience for The Gardens at Ball, as this area is called, is Ball’s corporate and wholesale customers. Visits to the Gardens are encouraged for clients to get an up-close look at Ball’s newest offerings. In fact, an annual field day is held in late July that is geared toward wholesale growers; Ball regularly sees 1,000 to

1,500 visitors at this event. In addition to its clients, The Gardens at Ball prove to be a valuable tool to the staff – especially sales representatives. Ball employees are urged to take regular walks through the garden or enjoy lunch al fresco in order to familiarize themselves with their employer’s latest offerings.

Chicago Botanic Garden

Glencoe, Illinois is the home of the Chicago Botanic Garden (CBG), which opened in 1972. Garden staff needed to know which plants would work best in the

Chicago-area climate, and thus the trial program was born in 1982. Originally, the main

purpose of the trials was to identify plants that would be successful in horticultural displays, although this would shift in the early 1990s. Current Trial Garden Manager

Richard Hawke was hired in 1986, and it was between 1982 and 1986 when CBG formalized the program that is still in place today. CBG honed in on its ability to influence the green industry and homeowners, and the trial gardens became a tool for educating visitors and promoting the best plants for the regional climate. Herbaceous perennials were rising in popularity in the late 80s and early 90s, which was an emerging trend in the world of landscape horticulture. “Perennials were a new thing – especially when you get into landscaping. Landscapers were really using woody plants to an excess, or a very small palette of herbaceous plants” (Hawke, 2014). It was 1989 when CBG built the perennial trial garden as it exists now. In its full-sun location, Hawke and his staff can trial numerous genera of herbaceous perennials. Presently, there are 30 genera under evaluation (Figure 4.24).

Hawke’s trial period for perennials is a minimum of four years, although he will often adjust that number based on how the trial is progressing. Like Longwood Gardens,

Hawke handpicks the genera chosen for evaluation at CBG, therefore most of the plant material is purchased rather than donated by breeders. This allows Hawke to evaluate with a lack of bias, evaluating what he wants, when he wants. He enjoys learning about the different groups of plants, and sees both the commercially available and unavailable selections growing side-by-side so to observe their different characteristics. He likes to always have a mix in the trial of both familiar and lesser-known plants in order to try to reach all visitors, who are at different gardening experience levels, from expert to novice.

For the CBG trial, the focus is not on “what’s new and hot,” but rather on what grows the best in the region – as Hawke calls it, the “tried and true.”

Aside from botanical plant labels, interpretive signage in the trial garden is minimal (Figure 4.25). However, Hawke successfully disseminates trial results through a variety of outlets, including CBG’s Plant Evaluation Notes, a periodic publication written by Hawke that highlights trial results of a specific genus. Plant Evaluation Notes are publicly available on the CBG website (chicagobotanic.org). Hawke also makes regular contributions to Fine Gardening (FG) magazine, with links to his FG articles also located on the CBG website. Hawke’s articles are popular, with two of them being FG’s highest rated ever in reader surveys. In the past, he has published in periodicals including Garden

Gate, NM Pro, American Nurseryman, The American Gardener (the magazine of the

American Horticultural Society), Perennial Plants (the journal of the Perennial Plant

Association), and Horticulture. Lecturing is another way that Hawke gets information about his trials to the public.

The Morton Arboretum

The mission of The Morton Arboretum, located in Lisle, Illinois, is “to collect and study trees, shrubs, and other plants, and to learn how to grow them in ways that enhance the environment.” Tree Improvement Specialist Joseph Rothleutner is working to fulfill this mission by breeding and introducing new cultivars of trees to fulfill the needs of greater Chicago’s urban environments.

As a partner institution in the Chicagoland Grows® Plant Introduction Program, which also includes Chicago Botanic Garden and the Ornamental Grower’s Association

of Northern Illinois, The Morton Arboretum breeds and selects primarily woody plants for characteristics such as cold hardiness, insect and pest resistance, and tolerance to urban conditions, including high salt levels, high soil pH, and exposure to wind. Once selected for the Chicagoland Grows® Program, a plant is marketed under the

Chicagoland Grows® brand regionally, nationally, and internationally. While these plants are marketed to both landscape professionals and home gardeners, Rothleutner thinks they are also perfect for municipal plantings, in medians and city green spaces, due to their adaptability to urban environments (Rothleutner, 2014). Through traditional breeding methods and ploidy manipulation, Rothleutner makes selections and puts them through an extensive evaluation process: five-year trials for shrubs and 10-year trials for trees. These trials are located in several places around the Arboretum’s grounds and are not highly interpreted for visitors (Figure 4.26). Tree introductions from the Chicagoland

Grows® Program, which were selected at The Morton Arboretum, have been recommended by Dr. Andrew Bell of Chicago Botanic Garden as trees that will adapt to climate warming through 2050 (Bell, 2013).

Terra Nova Nurseries

Terra Nova® Nurseries, Inc. was co-founded by Dan Heims and Ken Brown in

1992. It is located in Canby, Oregon and is an industry leader in annual and perennial plant breeding. Dan, Ken, and their team release approximately 50 new plants each year, and have released almost 700 new plants since Terra Nova’s inception. Additionally, they have won over 60 awards for their accomplishments.

As President, Dan Heims works closely with his research team, Director of New

Product Development Chuck Pavlich and Plant Breeders Janet Egger and Harini

Korlipara, to identify weaknesses in existing plants on the market and create a breeding strategy to address them. This model has proved successful for Terra Nova, as they are widely known for their contribution to the genus Heuchera, having introduced over 70 new cultivars. They have also made major contributions to many other genera, most notably including Agastache, Begonia, Coreopsis, Echinacea, Pulmonaria, and Sedum.

Along with a four-color catalog created by their in-house marketing team, Terra

Nova also exhibits and promotes its products in its display gardens (Figure 4.27). These gardens are effective sales tools for Terra Nova’s wholesale clients. Their gardens are also open by appointment to horticulture professionals, including horticulturists and garden writers.

Terra Nova conducts private, on-site trials to determine whether or not to introduce a new cultivar. Only after they have decided to release a new plant will they send specimens to outside evaluators, which may include garden writers and public gardens. Their on-site trials include plants introduced by other breeders, which serve as a comparison for Terra Nova’s selections (Heims, 2014) (Figure 4.28).

The Oregon Garden

Known as “Oregon’s Garden City,” Silverton, Oregon is the home of the Oregon

Garden (OG). OG opened in 2001 with the support of the Oregon Association of

Nurseries as a way to highlight the diverse botanical beauty of the region as well as promote sustainability through forest and wastewater management. Regional Horticulture

Manager and Botanical Curator Ty Boland oversees the horticultural needs of OG, including trial gardens. There is presently one area devoted entirely to Proven Winners introductions (Figure 4.29) and one for Ball Horticulture introductions (Figure 4.30). OG is a display ground for AAS material and is also working with a local Fuchsia nursery to trial new cultivars of Fuchsia for cold hardiness and sun exposure.

The Proven Winners and Ball trials have been in place for about six years. Both companies send seed to OG at no charge, and Boland and his staff grow the seed over the winter and plant outside when the weather warms. All plant material has been previously released. The relationship that OG has with both Proven Winners and Ball is mutually beneficial, as it provides OG with free annual plant material for a colorful display, and

Boland provides company representatives with feedback about how the plants are performing in their climate. Occasionally, Ball will actually bring regional clientele to

OG to show them how their plants are performing. Boland points out that it can sometimes be challenging to create displays with the plant material: it all depends on what the company decides to send and some years, “it could all just be shades of pink!

Pink, hot pink, and then red and orange… You have to get creative” (Boland, 2014).

In addition to the Proven Winners and Ball trials, Boland takes pride in their

Fuchsia trials, which came out of a partnership with Ann Detweiler of Fry Road Nursery in Albany, Oregon. OG presently has over 10 different kinds of Fuchsia, and they observe them primarily for cold hardiness. The remaining plants in the trial are also proving to be tolerant to clay soil and full sun. Boland says that it’s been a good partnership, as they get to try out new plants that he did not think would survive in their garden, and Detweiler gets to promote her nursery to visitors of the garden. As a result of

the success with the Fuchsia trial so far, Detweiler has offered to donate more plant material to the garden. OG is also an AAS display garden, which means they create a display that features the most recent AAS trial winners. OG’s AAS display includes both ornamental and vegetable winners.

Presently, guest interpretation is minimal in the trial areas. A small sign is located in the Proven Winners’ trial garden, and the OG tram driver tells visitors about the Ball area as they drive by. As Boland sees it, having these gardens is primarily a marketing tool for Proven Winners and Ball. Much of the material is newly released, and the companies want to get them out to gardens and to the public: OG is a good way for them to do this. The feedback that the companies get from OG helps them to know to which regions they can ship their plant material where it will perform the best. “At the end of the day, it helps out Ball or Proven Winners more than the academic or scientific field”

(Boland, 2014).

JC Raulston Arboretum at NC State University

Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, the JC Raulston Arboretum (JCRA) was established in 1976 by the late Dr. JC Raulston of NC State University. The Arboretum’s mission is “to introduce, display, and promote plants that diversify the American landscape, thereby benefiting our communities economically, environmentally, and aesthetically, as well as provide educational experiences to the general public, students of all ages, and the green industry” (JCRA, 2014). JCRA fulfills this mission in part with their extensive color trials (Figure 4.31).

Director Mark Weathington and Research Technician/AAS Judge Bernadette

Clark shared their insight into the background and mission of the trials, as well as their vision for the future. The color trials started under the Horticultural Science Department at NC State, but were officially absorbed into the JCRA under the directorship of Dr.

Robert Lyons. When Clark first started, the trials mainly consisted of bedding plants, but grew to include cool season plants, perennials, and vegetables. JCRA is an official AAS

Trial Ground, but also evaluates additional items sent to them by various breeders, outside of the AAS trials. Data collected from these trials are posted on the JCRA website (jcra.ncsu.edu) in addition to being sent to AAS, participating breeders, and the

National Plant Trials Database. JCRA also hosts various events to promote their plant trials, including a Home Landscape Color Field Day. The field day occurs each summer and is presented in partnership with the North Carolina Commercial Flower Growers

Association. Events have included tours through the trials and presenters who speak about notable trial plants in the context of home container gardening or small-space gardening. There may also be educational sessions geared toward green industry professionals that focus on landscaping or production. Field days can attract around 50 or

60 people to the Arboretum, but both Weathington and Clark would like to see more attendees in the future.

In addition to the color trials, Weathington considers the entire Arboretum a trial garden. Because the Arboretum’s mission is to promote diverse landscape plants, they are constantly trying new plant material – including specimens acquired through plant exploration. Most of these are woody specimens and may be observed for five to seven years before Arboretum staff can come to a definitive opinion about its performance.

While information from these kinds of trials is not distributed as regularly as results of the color trials, JCRA does actively promote the high performers through articles or talks.

They also work closely with the Johnston County Nursery Marketing Association

(JCNMA) to recommend and promote new and different landscape plants for the local market. “They are plants that have done well [at JCRA] and look like they could sell, but are not [yet] popular or widespread” (Weathington, 2014). Weathington, members of the

JCNMA, and local retailers meet regularly to discuss potential plants: “When we all get to an agreement – we say it’s a good plant, the growers say they can grow it, and the retailers say they can sell it – that really works out. We want to benefit all of the green industry” (Weathington, 2014).

Mt. Cuba Center

Mt. Cuba Center is located in Hockessin, Delaware, and is the former estate of

Mr. and Mrs. Lammot du Pont Copeland. In July of 2012, Mt. Cuba Center opened its

Trial Garden, which included a 5000 square foot shade house. Today, the trial garden is managed by George Coombs, who evaluates both native species and their related cultivars for ornamental as well as ecological value (Figure 4.32). For cultivars, at least one of the parent plants must be a native species. Past trials have comprised the genera

Aster, Echinacea, Coreopsis, and, most recently, Heuchera.

For most of the genera, the trial period lasts for three years. Almost all of the plant material is purchased by Coombs, and all of the cultivars are already on the market.

Coombs admits that he will occasionally receive plants from breeders, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Because of this, Coombs believes that the Mt. Cuba Center

trials are geared more to the end user rather than the industry; as a botanic garden, the strength in their trials lies in the fact that the public is coming to see and interact with the plants. Coombs collects data on the trials and publishes a final report for each genera, which is then made available to the public on the Mt. Cuba Center website

(mtcubacenter.org). “It’s like Consumer Reports for plants! There are some people who are going to read a Consumer Reports before they buy a car or refrigerator; some want to do it before they buy a plant” (Coombs, 2014).

There is interpretive signage throughout the trial area, and Coombs is quick to point out that Mt. Cuba Center, and the trial garden specifically, is new to signage.

Presently, signs inform visitors primarily about the different genera that is being evaluated - there is a sign for each genus in the trial garden; however, Coombs says that they want to create another, larger sign that will interpret the trial garden space as a whole (Figure 4.33).

In 2014, a new program was put into place to capitalize on the trial garden: Mt.

Cuba Center and University of Delaware formed a partnership to begin the Mt. Cuba

Center Fellowship. Two inaugural students, Emily Baisden and Owen Cass, are conducting research on native cultivars to see how ecological benefits differ between species and cultivars.

Costa Farms

Costa Farms, located south of Miami, was started in 1961 by Jose Costa, Sr.

Today, they are a commercial grower, producing indoor plants, flowering tropicals, annuals, and perennials. Costa Farms also produces young plant material (liners and

plugs) for wholesale customers. Angelica Cretu, Director of Research and Development at Costa Farms, provided information about the company’s public trial gardens.

The trial garden at Costa Farms started in 2008, with just a few row beds, and was expanded to 1 acre of row and landscape beds in 2009. The company realized that it was a necessity to trial items in the hot, humid, and wet climate of Miami, which is quite unique from much of the rest of the country. Two trials are installed in the garden each year. From December to June, the trial objective is to emphasize all of the new plant introductions for the upcoming year. These trials, known as “Season Premier,” are specifically geared to breeders and clients, including Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and

Lowe’s. The second trial is in place from June through October, and the objective is to observe which plants perform well in the Miami climate over the summer season. All of the plants in the trials are selected by breeding companies, and almost all of the plant material has been released already (Cretu, 2104).

The trials are used to educate the staff at Costa Farms as well as their clients, so that they can make informed recommendations for plant placement in their stores. While the garden is open for anyone to see, the primary audience includes breeders, commercial growers, landscapers, and clients of Costa Farms. It can also be a popular destination for school trips. Data collected from the trial garden is used to create in-house reports. These reports are shared with breeders and clients, but are also published on the company’s website (rd.costafarms.com/Public/TrialGarden.aspx) for their online followers.

Cretu sees the public trial garden continuing to grow and change to adapt to evolving trends in gardening. For example, this year she says that the trial contained more mixed containers than previous years, because container gardening is rising in popularity.

She imagines that the size of the trial garden will expand to accommodate all of the new plants going into evaluation as well as new scenarios that clients want feedback on – landscape plantings, hanging baskets, and mixed containers (Cretu, 2014).

Costa Farms also conducts private trials of unreleased plant material.

Confidentiality is of utmost importance in the private trial facility, and no outside visitors are allowed inside without Cretu’s prior permission. Results from these trials are made available only to participating entities and are not published publicly.

University of Georgia Trial Gardens

The Trial Gardens at University of Georgia (UGA) were co-founded in 1982 by two UGA horticulture professors, Dr. Allen Armitage and Dr. Michael Dirr. The gardens are located on the campus of UGA in Athens, Georgia. Both former Director Dr.

Armitage and current Director, Dr. John Ruter, were interviewed for this research.

UGA conducts both public and private trials, although it is the public trial gardens that have become renowned amongst horticultural tour groups. In the trial gardens, breeders pay UGA to have their material evaluated in the high heat and humidity conditions that are infamous in Athens. Unlike Miami, Athens experiences frost in the winter, which makes it an ideal location for evaluating cold hardiness in herbaceous perennials, as well.

When the gardens were first started, Armitage recalls that their focus was “strictly industry – meaning, if you send us some plants and some money, we’ll get you data”

(Armitage, 2014). As the garden evolved, it became a resource for consumers as well.

The trial garden hosted field days for consumers and was a regular stop for garden club

tour buses. According to Armitage, breeding companies were excited to have so many consumers seeing their material. In 2014, under the leadership of Dr. Ruter, the trial garden team held an “Evening in the Garden” event to reach out to the public and invite them to visit the gardens. The event had a Mediterranean theme, and vendors were invited to sell their wares, including pottery, oils and vinegars, and various beverages.

The event was well-received, and Ruter looks forward to future events like it.

One of the biggest advantages to the trial gardens at UGA is the proximity to students and the ability to provide an educational experience. Ruter teaches two plant identification courses using the garden. He is presently working to recreate the perennial collections to make the gardens more teaching-friendly. Additionally, the garden employs student workers throughout the year, giving them valuable horticultural work experience.

Ruter still feels like the garden is going through a bit of a transition since the retirement of Armitage. The name “Armitage” became synonymous with trialing, and there was concern in the industry that the gardens may suffer as a result of his retirement.

However, Ruter is confident in the future of the trials and adds, “if you want a good trial and good data done right, we’re still the place to come” (Ruter, 2014).

Additional Interviews

As survey and interview results were analyzed, additional questions arose that warranted further research. Graduate Committee members suggested additional interviews in order to gain further insight into specific aspects of the results, including the decline in plant material being sent to public gardens and universities for trial programs.

Sakata Seed America

Bob Croft is the Technical Support Specialist and Trials Coordinator at Sakata

Seed America, which manages the research, production, and sales division of Sakata

Seed Corporation. Sakata’s top products include SunPatiens®, sun-loving hybrid impatiens, and SuperCal®, a Petunia x Calibrachoa hybrid.

Sakata’s trial program is run through the Sales and Marketing Department, and the goals are to observe how Sakata’s plants fare alongside commercial competitors and grab the attention of consumers and buyers. For Sakata, commercial growers are able to fulfill these goals the most effectively: growers host field days that attract an audience of major retailers and other wholesale growers, which offers Sakata and other breeders the exact kind of exposure that they desire. Croft says that, over the years, he has noticed that attendance at university field days has declined; therefore, breeders are having a hard time continuing to support trials at those locations. Additionally, due to various resource limitations, university gardens do not always offer the kind of site uniformity that breeding companies desire. According to Croft, commercial grower sites are often new and designed especially for uniformity in sun exposure and drainage.

Croft believes that the public gardens and arboreta do play a role in the plant breeding process: they can display varieties and expose new plants to the public.

All-America Selections

All-America Selections (AAS) is an independent, non-profit, trialing organization with trial gardens all over North America. AAS trials are located at public gardens and

arboreta, colleges and universities, and breeding and seed companies. The best performers in AAS trials will be declared AAS winners, and they will be displayed at

AAS display gardens.

Ron Cramer is the former Board President of AAS, and he shared his thoughts about some of the issues raised from the survey results. He believes that a decline in field trials at universities and public gardens stems from the strong relationship forming between the largest commercial growers and the “big box” retailers, such as Home

Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart. Together, these two groups are making the major decisions regarding which new varieties are being selected for production and distribution. Cramer mentioned how each big box retailer has some form of a “grower council.” According to Cramer, a grower council is “a group of their key suppliers who are formally charged by the retailer to trial new varieties and plants.” These groups tend to dictate what will be released to the big box market and what will either be distributed to smaller markets or abandoned completely. Cramer suggests that this more streamlined tactic of introduction, in combination with the shortened life cycle of a new variety and the increase in vegetative production, has possibly contributed to 54% of survey respondents reporting that their trials have increased (Figure 4.4).

With regards to trial programs, Cramer thinks that gardens and universities still have an integral role; he acknowledges the significance of their accessibility to the public and their ability to educate visitors about the different existing commercial varieties.

Figure 4.21. The Trial Garden at Longwood Gardens in Kennett Square, PA. (Photo courtesy of Longwood Gardens)

Figure 4.22. Guests visiting the Trial Garden at Longwood Gardens may take a paper ballot and pencil from this voting station and vote on their favorite plants. Completed ballots may be submitted through the Drop Box, located on the left below the “ballots” box. An interpretive sign (right) explains to guests what the trial garden is and why their vote is important.

Figure 4.23. The Comparison Trials at the Gardens at Ball in West Chicago, Illinois feature Ball selections alongside competitors’ introductions to see how they perform. (Photo courtesy of Ball Horticultural Company)

Figure 4.24. The Sun Evaluation Garden at Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, Illinois.

Figure 4.25. This is the interpretive signage at the Sun Evaluation Garden at Chicago Botanic Garden in Glencoe, Illinois.

Figure 4.26. Interpretive signage for the woody plant-breeding program at the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, Illinois.

Figure 4.27. Display gardens at Terra Nova Nurseries in Canby, Oregon are beautiful and functional: the serve as a powerful marketing tool to Terra Nova’s clients.

Figure 4.28. Comparison trials at Terra Nova Nurseries compare Terra Nova selections with other cultivars already on the market.

Figure 4.29. The Proven Winners trial garden at The Oregon Garden in Silverton, Oregon.

Figure 4.30. The Ball Horticulture trial garden at The Oregon Garden in Silverton, Oregon.

Figure 4.31. Annual color trials at the JC Raulston Arboretum in Raleigh, NC not only provide valuable data, but also a beautiful backdrop for a summer photo.

Figure 4.32. At Mt. Cuba Center’s Trial garden, a trial of Baptisia (right) is finishing up, while a new trial of Phlox has just been installed (center).

Figure 4.33. Interpretive signage has recently been added to the trial garden. This sign tells visitors about the genus Baptisia, which is presently being evaluated in the trial garden.

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

Both survey and interview results highlight challenges in the horticulture industry at large with regard to plant trials. With so many different trial garden stakeholders, there are many different trial garden goals. As the quantitative data suggest, public gardens may want to emphasize visitor education, universities may seek to provide teaching opportunities for students, breeders may be focused on introducing a certain number of new plants each year, and growers may desire to be on the forefront of the new plant introductions so that they may sell them to their clients. These results beg the question, how can everyone be on the same page? How can each stakeholder learn and benefit from each other? Specifically, what role should public garden stakeholders play to have the greatest impact?

The Evolution of Field Trials

A majority of survey participants responded that plant trial programs have increased in size over the last five years, while a majority of the breeding company participants reported that the amount of plant material sent to public gardens has actually decreased. This is a notable change in direction for the horticulture industry.

Traditionally, external field trials at universities and public gardens were a crucial step in

the plant introduction process, providing unbiased evaluations that informed growers about which new plants they may consider producing in future seasons (Hardie, 2014).

However, breeders and growers have begun to de-emphasize university and public garden trials by greatly decreasing the amount of plant material being sent to these institutions.

AAS Board President Ron Cramer hypothesized, “These trial programs are very expensive for growers and breeders, which has caused breeders to eliminate any university and public garden trials that are not providing top value for their cost. That is the reason that today we see only a handful of university programs and public garden programs still actively supported by the large breeders and growers” (Cramer, 2014).

Breeding companies are now finding it more economical to send plant material to their commercial grower customers to trial, “because then you have the customer seeing it first hand, and they are going to know how to grow something from the get-go once they start to buy the product,” AAS Executive Director Diane Blazek explains (Hardie, 2014). Jim

Nau, Manager of The Gardens at Ball, emphasizes the time saved when plants are trialed at a commercial grower. “The biggest advantage is that [Ball] gets initial buy-in immediately. If [growers] like it, they like it, and if they don’t, they don’t. Then, we’re done and can move forward” (Nau, 2014). According to Nau, the process can be delayed when plants are trialed at a university or public garden. Ball still sends some plant material to university trials and hosts open houses for their clients. Growers and other green industry stakeholders may visit the trials during an open house, but if they see a plant that they like, they must still wait before they can obtain, grow, and produce it for the market. By sending plant material directly to growers to trial, breeding companies like Ball save both money and time in the plant introduction process. Bob Croft, Trials

Coordinator at Sakata Seed America, notes that commercial trials, “offer more exposure and influence via the retail chain,” which is the primary audience that breeders want to reach with their new introductions (Croft, 2014). With commercial grower trials nationwide, the regional performance data provided by university or public garden trials is no longer as crucial; the wide geographic range of commercial trials fills that need for most breeding companies (Nau, 2104).

Potential Issues with Bias

The decline in plant material sent for trial at universities and public gardens may be due to more than just economic ramifications. Both breeding companies and growers have a vested interest in the outcome of the trials. Breeders want their plants to perform well so that they may succeed in all marketplaces, and growers want to identify plants that perform well in trials so that they may produce and distribute them.

The issue of biased judging was not lost on survey participants. Over half (52%) of all survey participants thought the main disadvantage to having trials at breeding companies (as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens) was that the trials could be biased, particularly if the breeder of a certain selection is judging the trials. Fifty-eight percent of respondents indicated that the main disadvantage of having trials at commercial growers could be a perceived favoritism for top-selling plants and ignoring those that are lesser-known. Several respondents offered their own answers to this question; 11 of the 36 write-in responses, which made up 0.05% of the total responses for the question, alluded to the issue of judging bias in their answer. It is likely that this percentage could have been much higher had there been a more clear

answer choice addressing the fact that growers may judge a trial based on their own preferences and needs. With regards to both breeding companies and commercial growers, it is clear the survey participants found undoubtedly unbiased evaluation lacking. Bernadette Clark, Trial Garden Manager and AAS Judge at JC Raulston

Arboretum, said, “You need to have that unbiased view. You would like to think that you could still have that in a commercial setting, but I’m not really sure it plays out that way”

(Clark, 2014).

Nau said that he is not concerned about issues of bias at Ball’s commercial trials.

“When we go to a commercial grower’s open house and see how something is performing, if something doesn’t look good, we can offer cultural recommendations to the grower. This helps us better-prepare our customers to get the best from their plants during production. Trials give us more information about how we should inform growers for the following year” (Nau, 2014). With the breeders and growers getting all of the information that they need, it would seem that bias is not an issue. However, when consumers are brought into the equation, a solid argument for third-party, unbiased review may be made.

Consumer Reports was established in 1936 as an independent, nonprofit organization to perform unbiased product testing and research in order to educate and aid consumers in their purchasing decisions (Consumer Reports “About Us”, 2015). From microwave ovens to vehicles to lawn mowers, Consumer Reports offers total transparency in their findings and sometimes uncovers major issues that product advertisements failed to address. Consumer Reports is accessible as both a printed magazine and a website (consumerreports.org), and resources like it may be more

relevant than ever with the pervasiveness of the Millennial consumer. According to a

2014 study administered by Elite Daily, only 1% of respondents said that a “compelling advertisement” would make them purchase a product. In fact, blogs, online news websites, and social networking sites were Millennials’ most consulted media sources for product information. According to David Arabov, CEO and Co-Founder of Elite Daily,

“Our findings confirmed that Millennials are highly educated, career-driven, politically progressive and – despite popular belief – do indeed develop strong brand loyalty when presented with quality products and actively engaged by brands” (Elite Daily, 2015).

This information translates to horticulture and the green industry, as well.

Currently, Consumer Reports does not test plant material, but that does not mean

Millennial consumers won’t be seeking that kind of information. Millennials are the fastest growing segment of food gardeners (Polanz, 2014) and consider themselves

“novice” gardeners who struggle with basic gardening tasks like weeding and fertilizing, but product quality is still of utmost importance to them (VanWingerden, 2014). With facts like these, it appears that high-performing and reliable plant choices would be greatly desired by this group of consumers. However, if breeding companies are decreasing the amount of plant material sent to universities and public gardens, and increasing the amount that it sends to commercial grower trials, how will consumers get unbiased reviews of plant material?

Not All Plant Trials are Created Equal

At this point, it is important to reiterate the distinction between different types of plant trials. Breeder trials differ from consumer trials in that one is focused on providing

results for breeders and growers, and the other’s audience is the general public. Breeders and growers aim to reach those who will make a major investment in the product, possibly ordering thousands to tens of thousands of units (Nau, 2014). To the contrary, a public garden’s audience is its visitors, who may be interested in purchasing one or more of a plant that they like. These are two very well-defined levels of plant trialing, but they have a lot to offer each other.

Additionally, the difference between the types of plants being trialed is notable.

Annuals, such as Petunia, Zinnia, and Tagetes, complete their entire life cycle in one growing season. Therefore, for plant breeders and growers, the shelf-life of these plants is extremely short, and the timeline for market introduction is very quick (Nau, 2014).

Perennials, such as Echinacea, Liatris, or Rudbeckia, can live for three or more growing seasons and typically die back to the ground in the winter. As a result, the trialing and production phases take longer than annuals, and they should last in a home garden for several years. Trees and shrubs take even longer.

Recognizing these differences is critical to understanding how trial garden stakeholders can most effectively utilize their strengths. In speaking with companies and growers with strong annual breeding and growing efforts like Ball and Costa Farms, it becomes clear how the timeline and audience for new annual introduction dictates the evolving processes. For annuals, companies are constantly working to breed and select the new plant trend for the next season. This pace is relatively rapid, so it is understandable how trialing directly with a commercial grower would help the process to move as quickly as possible. Additionally, the primary audience for these annual breeding and growing companies are wholesale clients buying in large quantities, such as

Wal-Mart and Lowe’s Home Improvement. Acknowledging how annual trialing at a university or public garden could slow down the introduction process, and the fact that they may have entirely different audiences, actually highlights a way in which these institutions could play a major role in perennial and woody plant trialing.

Turning a Challenge into an Opportunity

While there are still many university and public garden annual trials that are quite successful and well-known, such as Colorado State University and the Dallas Arboretum, the undeniable trend is that breeding companies are sending less annual plant material to these institutions in favor of commercial trials. However, this opens up a possible opportunity for universities and public gardens to trial perennials and woody plants.

Since they last longer than one growing season, it is imperative that perennials be trialed for more than one year. Also, because of the enormous variation among perennial genera, it could take longer than two years to get an accurate assessment of perennial plant performance in the landscape. For Ball perennials, Jim Nau said that commercial growers receive plant material for trials one year in advance of potential introduction (Nau, 2014).

Accordingly, the grower can observe plant performance over the winter months.

However, this strategy may leave many questions unanswered: How will it perform after two or three winters? Will it spread vigorously in the garden over time or will it create a large clump? Will it be short-lived in the garden, or could it last for many years?

With external and/or internal funding support, universities and public gardens could be perfect to provide such data. These could be both breeder and consumer-focused trials, providing valuable, unbiased, post-introduction feedback about plant performance

to breeders and informing homeowners about perennials that fare well in their region over time. Perennial trials like these currently exist, which demonstrate strategies for both external and internal funding sources. The University of Georgia (UGA) Trial Gardens, which was primarily an annual trial for the hot and humid conditions in Athens, Georgia, has evolved over the years to feature more perennials. Director Dr. John Ruter is planning to include even more perennials in the future. The UGA Trial Gardens are primarily for breeder trials, sending data back to breeding companies regularly; however, due to the popularity of the UGA Gardens and the number of annual visitors, their trials provide regionally specific information about ideal plants for home gardening consumers.

Breeding companies provide plant material, and Ruter charges them a fee to have their plants trialed there (Ruter, 2014). Chicago Botanic Garden (CBG) is an example of a public garden with an extensive perennial trial garden that is primarily funded internally.

Consumers benefit most from CBG’s performance data, and a partnership between CBG and Fine Gardening magazine help disseminate trial results to home gardeners nationwide (Hawke, 2014). Both the UGA Trial Gardens and CBG’s trial garden illustrate how a perennial trial could be right at home at a university or public garden.

Data collected at university and public garden perennial trials can also be uploaded to the National Plant Trials Database (planttrials.org), which was launched in

2012. The National Plant Trials Database (NPTD) is a central repository for plant trial data from across the country and was inspired by the need for a standard rating scale and trialing method amongst all trial gardens institutions (Hardie, 2014). The site requires a log-in and password and is geared toward industry professionals, specifically breeders and growers, allowing access to trial data to quickly compare how one plant performed at

many different locations. Each trial site indicates whether a plant was trialed in the ground or in a container, in full sun or shade, and data is collected over several months so that the plant’s performance over time is recorded (Figure 5.1). Presently, most of the data on the site is for annual and tropical genera, but AAS is actively working to increase the number of perennial genera represented (Blazek, 2014). Despite the relevancy of the

NPTD, the majority (66%) of survey respondents indicated that they were not yet familiar with it. As the site grows and gains popularity among trial garden stakeholders, perhaps

AAS will consider adding a consumer aspect to the site and allow the public to learn about perennials that have performed successfully in their region.

One of the biggest challenges expressed by university and public garden trial garden managers was plant availability; all too often, garden visitors were disappointed by an inability to find retail sources of successful trial plants. Dr. Ruter of UGA Trial

Gardens, Richard Hawke of CBG, and George Coombs of Mt. Cuba Center echoed this dilemma. “Most of the garden centers don’t have [a plant that was successful in our trial].

I try to explain that the plant did well and will hopefully show up next year at a garden center near you. Sometimes I think that’s how this whole process falls apart” (Ruter,

2104). Coombs reiterated this sentiment, “A lot of the cultivars [that we have trialed] just aren’t available [anymore]. That’s something that we struggle with – to do these in a timely manner so that the cultivars are still relevant and they haven’t fallen out of favor”

(Coombs, 2014).

This challenge provides a unique opportunity for the horticulture industry.

University marketing programs have already proven successful in their respective regions, including Oklahoma Proven (Anella et al., 2001) and Arkansas Select

(Lindstrom et al., 2001). Terra Nova Nurseries in Canby, Oregon is already tuned in to the marketing strength of public garden trials: Terra Nova’s 2014/2015 catalog described

Echinacea purpurea ‘Fragrant Angel’ as being the “highest rated white flowered coneflower in the Mt. Cuba Center Echinacea trials from 2007 to 2009” (Figure 5.2).

Based on the previous literature and the interviews conducted for this research, a proposed recommendation is an expanded collaboration between universities/public gardens and local nursery/retail garden centers, similar to the arrangement between North

Carolina State University’s JC Raulston Arboretum and the Johnston County Nursery

Marketing Association. An example of collaboration would be a partnership between Mt.

Cuba Center, North Creek Nursery (a wholesale propagation nursery), and Gateway

Garden Center (a retail garden center), all located in Hockessin, Delaware. In this theoretical example, Mt. Cuba Center is in the final year of a Baptisia trial. George

Coombs is compiling data and drawing conclusions based on results of the trial. There are three standout cultivars that he will be recommending in his report. However, there is presently no garden center in the region that is carrying these cultivars. It could be because they are older cultivars, or perhaps they are brand-new and not being widely produced commercially yet. Coombs could take his data to both North Creek Nursery and

Gateway Garden Center and propose a partnership: if North Creek produces these particular cultivars, even though they are older and no longer available commercially at most nurseries, then Gateway Garden Center can sell them, marketing them heavily as the best performers at the Mt. Cuba Center trials, which are unbiased and accessible to the public. Coombs could provide literature for Gateway’s customers outlining the trial results, possibly being on-site at the garden center for a special event to promote both the

plants and the work he is doing at Mt. Cuba Center. This partnership would provide sales for both Gateway Garden Center and North Creek Nursery, but it would also bring awareness to Mt. Cuba Center and the strength of its trial program. Access to new cultivars could be more complicated, but a partnership like this would be a good start for sparking the attention of a breeding company and obtaining new plant material for production. This model could be very successful at both public gardens and universities and would benefit the local green industry as well.

Playing to Their Strengths

Public gardens are in an excellent position to play this role of educator, and results show the horticulture industry is in agreement. The majority (54%) of survey participants agreed that the primary advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers is the opportunity to educate the public about plant trials and what plants grow best in their area (Figure 4.12). Additionally, 74% of participants agreed that it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission.

For many people, visiting a public garden is their first experience with horticultural production and gardening. A perennial trial garden would be an ideal teaching tool. A trial garden can expose people to new plants while also demonstrating which plants perform the best in the regional climate. The CBG trial garden has taught

Richard Hawke to be open-minded when it comes to selecting genera for that very reason. “There are plants that we might think are common to us, but to someone else it’s like, what is that?” Hawke works to maintain a balance of genera that will stimulate a

variety of visitors, from professionals to beginners. “You can’t assume all visitors know all of the plants. An old introduction could be new to them” (Hawke, 2014).

All trial garden stakeholders – breeding companies, commercial growers, universities, retail garden centers, and public gardens – are focused on informing consumers and promoting the horticulture industry. However, while breeding companies and growers are focused on the wholesale market, it is universities, public gardens, and garden centers that concentrate on the needs of the homeowner. Because of their shared, primary audience in the end consumer, they are natural partners.

Looking Ahead

The world of ornamental plant trials is vast, with many moving parts. By identifying different types of trials and understanding the varied goals of different institutions, this research clarified the roles of each stakeholder. Universities and public gardens provide the unparalleled ability to educate without bias, just like a “Consumer

Reports for plants,” as George Coombs put it. With the increasing buying power of the

Millenial generation, such unbiased reporting should prove invaluable (VanWingerden,

2014). If this reporting were combined with local retail garden center partners, high- performing perennial plants could be made available to consumers, resulting in a win-win situation for all involved parties.

Public gardens have and will continue to play an important role in plant trialing, however evolving that role may be. All-America Selections is already working on creating a perennial arm to their powerhouse trialing organization (Blazek, 2014). By working with breeders, growers, universities and public gardens, AAS hopes to meet the

needs of all stakeholders to make the program as effective as possible. This could be a challenge, as Hawke explains, “There are 10 different ways of looking at this. Everybody wants something different. It is interesting to me, because I realized that I don’t know as much as I thought I did about the nursery industry. It does not work the way botanic gardens work” (Hawke, 2014).

By identifying all of the needs and end goals ahead of time, and acknowledging them all as significant and legitimate, it is possible for all of the trial garden stakeholders to move forward with a project like the AAS perennial trials and have it be successful.

Each stakeholder plays an important role in the plant trialing process, and they can learn from and benefit each other.

Figure 5.1. This screenshot of the National Plant Trials Database (www.planttrials.org) demonstrates how plant performance data over time is collected at several different testing sites across the country.

Figure 5.2. Breeding companies like Terra Nova Nurseries use public garden trial results to help market their plants.

REFERENCES

--. "About Us: AAS History." All-America Selections History. All-America Selections, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

--. "About Us - Consumer Reports." About Us - Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports, n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.

Anella, Louis B., Michael A. Schnelle, and Dale M. Maronek. "Oklahoma Proven: A Plant Evaluation and Marketing Program." HortTechnology 11.3 (2001): 381-84. Print.

Armitage, Allan. "The Trial Gardens at UGA." Telephone interview. 14 Aug. 2014.

Armitage, Allan M., and Meg Green. "The University Trial Garden as a Tool for Evaluating and Introducing New Plant Materials." HortTechnology 11.3 (2001): 368-72. Print.

Arnold, Michael A., R. Daniel Lineberger, Tim D. Davis, Steven W. George, Wayne A. Mackay, Greg D. Grant, Jerry M. Parsons, and Larry A. Stein. "Integrating Plant Trials into Teaching and Student Research Programs." HortTechnology 11.3 (2001): 385-88. Print.

Bell, Andrew. "Trees for 2050." My Chicago Botanic Garden. Chicago Botanic Garden, 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.

Bielaczyc, Tony. "The Spring Collection: New Varieties Promise Easy Care and Stunning Beauty." Garden Design Mar. 2012: 16. Print.

Blazek, Diane. "All-America Selections and Public Gardens." Message to the author. 6 Sept. 2013. E-mail.

Boland, Ty. "Plant Trials at The Oregon Garden." Personal interview. 8 Aug. 2014.

Coombs, George. "The Mt. Cuba Center Trial Garden." Personal interview. 1 Oct. 2014.

Cramer, Ron. "Trial Garden Trends." E-mail interview. 3 Nov. 2014.

Cretu, Angelica. "Trial Gardens at Costa Farms." E-mail interview. 13 Oct. 2014.

Croft, Bob. "Plant Trialing Trends at Sakata Seed." E-mail interview. 31 Oct. 2014.

Hamilton, Susan L., and Kathleen DeMarrais. "Visits to Public Gardens: Their Meaning for Avid Gardeners." HortTechnology 11.2 (2001): 209-15. Print.

Hardie, Anne-Marie. "A Necessary Struggle." GrowerTalks 78.7 (2014): 68-70. Print.

Hardie, Anne-Marie. "What Successful Landscape Nurseries Do Right." GrowerTalks 78.4 (2014): 52-58. Print.

Hawke, Richard. "Plant Trials at Chicago Botanic Garden." Personal interview. 24 July 2014.

Heims, Dan. "Plant Evaluation at Terra Nova Nurseries." Personal interview. 8 Aug. 2014.

--. "History of Wisley." RHS Gardening. Royal Horticultural Society, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

Hockenberry Meyer, Mary, Stan Hokanson, Susan Galatowitsch, and James Luby. "Public Gardens: Fulfilling the University's Research Mission." HortTechnology 20.3 (2010): 522-27. Print.

Janick, Jules. "Plant Exploration: From Queen Hatshepsut to Sir Joseph Banks." HortScience : A Publication of the American Society for Horticultural Science 42.2 (2007): 191-96. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Lindstrom, Jon T., James A. Robbins, Gerald L. Klingaman, Scott Starr, and Janet Carson. "The University of Arkansas Plant Evaluation Program." HortTechnology 11.3 (2001): 362-64. Print.

--. Millennial Consumer Trends. Rep. Elite Daily, 19 Jan. 2015. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Nau, Jim. "The Plant Trialing Process at Ball Horticultural Company." Telephone interview. 21 Jan. 2015.

--. "Ornamental Plant Research: Plant Evaluation Program." Chicago Botanic Garden. Chicago Botanic Garden, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.

Pangborn, Lindsay. "About Our Evaluations." Floriculture Trial Results. The Ohio State University, 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Pavlich, Chuck. "Picking the Perfect Plant." GrowerTalks 78.1 (2014): 36-37. Print.

Polanz, Jennifer. "A Bountiful Harvest." GreenProfit 78.4 (2014): 28-34. Print.

Rotella, Katie. "The New Multi-Screen Consumer." GrowerTalks 78.7 (2014): 34. Print.

Rothleutner, Joseph. "Plant Breeding and Trialing at the Morton Arboretum." Personal interview. 25 July 2014.

Ruter, John. "The Trial Gardens at UGA." Telephone interview. 29 Oct. 2014.

Schmitz, Susan. "The Gardens at Ball." Personal interview. 23 July 2014.

Sheorn, Blanton. "Customers for Life." GrowerTalks 78.5 (2014): 34. Print.

Smith, Shannon. "Why a Botanical Garden?" Public Garden 4 (1989): 14-15. Print.

Taylor, Matthew. "Trial Gardens at Longwood Gardens." Personal interview. 11 July 2014.

--. "The Gardens at Ball." Ball Horticultural. Ball Horticultural Company, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.

--. "Trial Garden Research." Trial Garden Research. Mt. Cuba Center, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.

VanWingerden, Abe. "Unraveling the Millennial Mystery." GrowerTalks 78.1 (2014): 80. Print.

Weathington, Mark, and Bernadette Clark. "The Trial Gardens at JC Raulston Arboretum." Personal interview. 22 Aug. 2014.

Appendix A

SURVEY RESEARCH

Exploratory Survey Questions

Thank you in advance for taking this brief preliminary survey examining the existence and value of plant trial programs at public horticulture institutions. Your responses will lead to the development of a future survey that will gather more in-depth data to better understand this topic. This survey is completely optional. You may exit at anytime and your answers will not be saved unless you complete the survey. Results are completely anonymous. The survey should take approximately 5 minutes to complete. The survey will close on December 9, 2014.

Which of the following best describes your position? m Educator (1) m Plant Breeder (2) m Trial Garden Manager (3) m Marketing Representative (4) m Greenhouse/Nursery Manager (5) m Design/Build/Install Landscape Manager (6)

Are you affiliated with a public garden or arboretum? m Yes (1) m No (2) If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To Is your garden affiliated with a coll...If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ...

Is your garden or arboretum affiliated with a college or university? m Yes (1) m No (2)

Do you currently have an active plant trial program or do you currently display trial winners?

m Active plant trial (1) m Display trial winners (2) m Both an active plant trial AND a trial winner display (3) m None of the above (4) If Active plant trial Is Selected, Then Skip To How do you conduct your plant trials?If Both an active plant trial ... Is Selected, Then Skip To How do you conduct your plant trials?If None of the above Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ...If Trial display garden Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ... How do you conduct your plant trials? m Independently within your own institution (1) m Through an outside organization (such as All-America Selections, Earth Kind, Proven Winners, etc.) (2) m Other (please specify) (3) ______If Independently Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ...If Through an outside organiza... Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ...If Other (please specify) Is Selected, Then Skip To Do you think it is important for publ...

Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to host plant trial programs? m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

In your opinion, what is the main advantage of having an on-site trial garden at a public garden or arboretum? (Choose all that apply.) q To educate people about the plant trial process (1) q To educate people about which plants perform well in their area (2) q To contribute to garden's research goals (3) q To promote innovations in plant breeding (4) q To add credibility to the plant trial by its association with the garden or arboretum (5) q Other (6) ______

In your opinion, what is the main disadvantage of having an on-site trial garden at a public garden or arboretum? (Choose all that apply.) q It would be overshadowed by other plant displays (1) q It would take up money that would need to be used elsewhere (2) q It would require an employee to manage it (3) q It would be confusing to explain to guests what is going on (4) q Other (5) ______

Appendix B

SURVEY RESEARCH

Exploratory Survey Results

1. Which of the following best describes your position? # Answer Response %

1 Educator 92 43%

2 Plant Breeder 25 12%

Trial Garden 3 47 22% Manager Marketing 4 8 4% Representative Greenhouse/Nursery 5 18 8% Manager Design/Build/Install 6 24 11% Landscape Manager Total 214 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 2.57 Variance 3.04 Standard Deviation 1.74 Total Responses 214

2. Are you affiliated with a public garden or arboretum? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 137 62%

2 No 85 38%

Total 222 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.38 Variance 0.24 Standard Deviation 0.49 Total Responses 222

3. Is your garden or arboretum affiliated with a college or university? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 86 63%

2 No 50 37%

Total 136 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.37 Variance 0.23 Standard Deviation 0.48 Total Responses 136

4. Do you currently have an active plant trial program or do you currently display trial winners? # Answer Response %

Active plant 1 45 33% trial Display trial 2 12 9% winners Both an active plant 3 trial AND a 43 31%

trial winner display None of the 4 37 27% above Total 137 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.53 Variance 1.46 Standard Deviation 1.21 Total Responses 137

5. How do you conduct your plant trials? # Answer Response %

Independently 1 within your 40 45%

own institution Through an outside organization (such as All- 2 America 23 26%

Selections, Earth Kind, Proven Winners, etc.) Other (please 3 25 28% specify) Total 88 100%

Other (please specify) AAS, NC7, private seed/plant companies both inside and outside Both both above Beautiful Gardens (plant introductory program for the state of VA) independent of the institution We work with AAS and do independent trials as well. gardenimg which both independently and with several outside organizations both independently and with outside organizations Idependent trials and through outside ogranization Both, independent and AAS-regimented trials We have 4 individulal trials We are part of the national grass trials program. both Adult Student Learning about Public Hort from Longwood Independently with some species, with outside organizations on others. Both Both AAS and independent entries Both in cooperation with the plant providers (NC-7, J. Frank Schmidt & Son, Inc.) We do both our own and collaborate with commercial nurseries We work both independtly and through other outside organizations Both the above through AAS and our own trials

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.83 Variance 0.72 Standard Deviation 0.85 Total Responses 88

6. Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to host plant trial programs? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 194 89%

2 No 7 3%

3 Not sure 18 8%

Total 219 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.20 Variance 0.32 Standard Deviation 0.57 Total Responses 219

7. In your opinion, what is the main advantage of having an on-site trial garden at a public garden or arboretum? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

To educate people about 1 97 46% the plant trial process To educate people about 2 which plants 190 89%

perform well in their area To contribute 3 to garden's 89 42%

research goals To promote innovations in 4 90 42% plant breeding To add credibility to the plant trial by its 5 84 39% association with the garden or arboretum 6 Other 22 10%

Other to educate the public about plant diversity within a species To highlight plants that people might not otherwise see - and to encourage gardening themselves. To find plants suitable for our displays. Give an independant quality brand protect plant genetic diversity To help professional growers and landscapers choose which plants to offer/use. To promote the use of these plants by the public To help the institution determine what new plants work best for the institution. Perfer plant trial to be of prior winners. Our public gardens are too small to conduct trials for plants that would not look good. I relie on universities or other settings for that research. educate staff, build vistitation through P. R. efforts about trials to help people understand how cultivate plants are developed To increase grower and supplier knowledge about which plants are superior performers. plant trial adds credibility to garden/arboretum To provide the public with the resources and knowledge to create their own bed designs with confidence, enhancing their own home as well as their immediate community. To create awareness of new plants to demonstrate plant and cultivar diversity To provide ample opportunity for public viewing and input to assist the nursery/landscape industry Provide information to farmers uniformity in trials required To create a broader public interest in the garden Drive market for new plants

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Total Responses 213

8. In your opinion, what is the main disadvantage of having an on-site trial garden at a public garden or arboretum? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

It would be overshadowed 1 24 12% by other plant displays It would take up money that 2 would need to 72 36%

be used elsewhere It would require an 3 112 56% employee to manage it It would be confusing to 4 explain to 22 11%

guests what is going on 5 Other 49 25%

Other The space required & the fact that some trial plants underperform and are unsightly. I don't see one Why a separate garden? If integrated into the other gardens its no longer side-by-side but the advantage is people can see it in "real life" function. I understand the need to have side- by-side/common conditions for research performance - but that doesn't rank highly in our mission. frequently unattractive in addition to expensive in terms of labor and staffing Unless data collection is done by an outside agency, it adds an additional responsibility for management of the plant collection not confidential It is not for every garden -- it needs to fit in with the garden's specific mission no disadvantage It takes valuable space. lack of strong marketing about th etrials and brand they create issue of plant release ahead of patenting Expense. Being conducted poorly due to lack of dedicated funding. staff don't always appreciate the advantages Security. You'll get plants only after they're named and offered. I do not think there is one A lot of time would go into managing the trial prone to pilferage of one of a kind material none Trials do not look as good as plantings or beds of plants known to grow well in our location. It can be difficult to compete for funds against other academic programs requires space that is in very short supply and is challenging to do in an aaesthetically pleasing way. it may not be of the same aesthetic value of the permanent plant displays none of these Maintenance of the trials costs a more money than the trial fees earn the gardens There may exist a tendency to manage trial for beauty and not to identify best genetics it would take space that could be used for more attractive gardens no disadvantage Unless the public understands or is educated about the trials process, the space used for trials sometimes appears less than expected to the garden visitor It would get so large that you loose your position. I consider no disadvantages exactly the fact that is PUBLIC: testing of advanced selections prior to their release is impossible.. Do not see it as a disadvantage Issues with testing materials in public places where MTA limites how public material can be. Many public garden and arboretum personnel are not trained in research procedures or experimental design and the data may not be statistically or scientifically valid. In a display garden, if plants don't look good, it becomes an issue. Often trial plants aren't as display worthy as other plants. That is part of the process. guests will not understand that the plants are not yet available for them to purchase, and may never be. none of the above too expensive

space and plots availa Space and plots availability for the trial garden very limited comparisons when hundreds of varieties are sold. Conflict over promotion of some varieties without good evidence of supperior traits. Money is an issue, but so is space for the trial garden, being quite limited here. Aesthetics It is very expensive I don't think there are any disadvantages! on site trials are sometimes not as attractive as display gardens, especially if it is a true trial that allows some of the plants to not do well can not remove plants that are not performing well labeling plants is time consuming and expensive I can't see any disadvantage because I would not accept a trial without being paid for land use, management, and data collection. Capital investment cost

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Total Responses 200

Appendix C

SURVEY RESEARCH

Final Survey Questions

Thank you in advance for taking this survey examining the existence and value of plant trial programs at public horticulture institutions. Your responses will support a Master's thesis that aims to evaluate existing trial programs and gain a better understanding of the perception of plant trials at public gardens and arboreta. This survey is completely optional. You may exit at any time and your answers will not be saved unless you complete the survey. Results are completely anonymous. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The survey will close on May 18, 2014.

For the purposes of this survey, definitions of recurring terms are listed below. • Trial garden: A garden grown specifically for the short-term or long-term evaluation of plants for research and development purposes. Data is regularly collected from this type of garden. May include any kind of plant. • Variety display garden: A garden grown specifically to showcase newly released cultivated varieties for the purpose of marketing those varieties to the public. No data is collected from this type of garden.

Which of the following best describes your position? m Educator (1) m Extension Specialist (2) m Research (3) m Plant Breeder (4) m Trial Garden Manager (5) m Horticulturist (6) m Marketing Representative (7) m Greenhouse/Nursery Manager (8) m Commercial Grower (9) m Design/Build/Install Landscaper (10) m Senior Management (11)

Which of the following best describes your employer? m Public garden or arboretum (1) m College or University (2) m Breeding company (3) m Commercial production (4) m Landscape industry (5) m Professional Organization (ASHS, AmericanHort, APGA, IPPS, etc.) (6) m Self-Employed (7) m Other (8) ______

Answer If Which of the following best describes your employer? Public garden or arboretum Is Selected Is your garden or arboretum affiliated with a college or university? m Yes (1) m No (2)

Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a variety display garden? m Active plant trial program (1) m Variety display garden (2) m Both active plant trial AND variety display (3) m None of the above (4) m Click to write Choice 5 (5)

Answer If Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a trial winners display garden? Trial winner display garden Is Selected Or Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a trial winners display garden? Both active plant trial AND trial winner display Is Selected Do you have interpretive signage for the variety display garden? (Interpretive signage is educational signage that explains to a visitor about the garden or exhibit in front of them.) m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

Answer If Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a variety display garden? Variety display garden Is Selected How would you describe the location of your employer's variety display garden? m Front and center. It's one of the first things that visitors see. (1) m Secondary. It's easy to find, but not part of a main display. (2) m Accessible by the public, but is out of the way. Many visitors miss it. (3) m We consider it to be part of our organization, but it is not accessible by the public. (4)

How do you conduct your plant trials? m Independently, within your own organization (1) m For an outside organization (All-America Selections, Earth Kind, etc.) (2) m For a commercial breeding company (Proven Winners, PanAm, Sakata, etc.) (3) m Both independently and for an outside organization/commercial breeding company (4) m Other (please specify) (5) ______

For how long has your employer been involved in active plant trials? m 0-5 years (1) m 6-10 years (2) m 11-15 years (3) m 16-25 years (4) m >25 years (5)

How has the size of your plant trialing program changed in the last 5 years? m It has increased (1) m It has decreased (2) m It has stayed the same (3)

During what season(s) do you run plant trials? (Choose all that apply.) q Summer (1) q Fall (2) q Winter (3) q Spring (4)

What kinds of plants do you include in your trials? (Choose all that apply.) q Annuals (1) q Perennials (2) q Vegetables (3) q Woody ornamentals (4) q Aquatic (5) q Tender perennials/tropicals (6)

How would you describe the location of your trial garden? m Easily accessible by the public, centrally located (1) m Easily accessible by the public, but not centrally located (2) m Open to the public, but only by appointment (3) m Private, not accessible by the public (4) m We have both public and private trials (5)

Answer If How would you describe the location of your trial garden? Easily accessible by the public, centrally located Is Selected Or How would you describe the location of your trial garden? Easily accessible by the public, but not centrally located Is Selected Or How would you describe the location of your trial garden? Open to the public, but only by appointment Is Selected Do you have interpretive signage for the trial garden? (Interpretive signage is educational signage that explains to a visitor about the garden or exhibit in front of them.) m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

How often do you collect data on the plant trials? m Daily (1) m 2-3 times per week (2) m Weekly (3) m Every other week (4) m Monthly (5) m Once a year (e.g. woody species) (6) m Not at all (7)

Do you collect quantitative or qualitative data on your plant trials? m Quantitative (e.g. plant height, plant width, flower number, etc.) (1) m Qualitative (e.g. flower color, foliage quality, overall performance, etc.) (2) m Both quantitative and qualitative (3)

Who is the primary source of your data collection? m Data is collected by one individual who is a professional member of our staff (e.g. the trial garden manager) (1) m Data is collected by a trial garden manager/designated horticulturist along with a small (2-3 person) team of assistants (2) m Data is collected by different staff members each time (3) m Data is collected from consumers and analyzed by our staff (e.g. Peoples' Choice) (4)

Where is your plant trial data published? (Choose all that apply.) q Internally (1) q On our website (2) q Professional/trade journals (HortTechnology, HortScience, GrowerTalks, Public Garden, American Nurseryman, etc.) (3) q Home gardening magazines (Better Homes & Gardens, Fine Gardening, Organic Gardening, etc.) (4) q Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) (5) q Centralized trial data website (National Plant Trials Database) (6) q Not sure (7)

Has your institution released any of its own new plants? m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

Has your institution ever held any events around your trials, such as field days for other people in the industry or programs to educate consumers? m Trial field days (aimed at nursery/landscape industry, breeders, etc.) (1) m Educational programs for visitors/consumers (2) m We don't hold any events related to our trials (3) m Other (please specify) (4) ______

Does your employer evaluate plants internally and/or through an outside source (commercial grower, public garden/arboretum, college or university)? m Internally (1) m Outside source (commercial grower, public garden/arboretum, college or university) (2) m Both internally and through an outside source (3) m Not sure (4) m Other (6) ______

What kinds of plants does your employer breed? (Choose all that apply.) q Annuals (1) q Perennials (2) q Vegetables (3) q Woody ornamentals (4) q Aquatic (5) q Tender perennials/tropicals (6)

What is the typical process that your employer undergoes when preparing a plant for commercial release? m Private trial in-house, then commercial release (1) m Private trial in-house, followed by private trial at an outside source, then commercial release (2) m Private trial in-house, followed by public trial at an outside source, then commercial release (3) m Only public trials, then commercial release (4) m Other (5) ______

Answer If Does your employer evaluate plants internally and/or through an outside source (commercial grower, public garden/arboretum, college or university)? Outside source (commercial grower, public garden/arboretum, college or university) Is Selected What sources for outside evaluation do you use the most? Please rank in order by dragging each choice to its appropriate ranking, with 1 being the most used and 4 being the least used/not used at all. ______Commercial Grower (1) ______Public Garden/Arboretum (2) ______College/Universtiy (3) ______Private/Independent Evaluator (4)

Answer If What is the typical process that your employer undergoes when preparing a plant for commercial release? Private trial in-house, followed by private trial at an outside source, then commercial release Is Selected How has the amount of plant material sent for private OR public trial at public gardens or arboreta changed in the past 5 years? m It has increased (1) m It has decreased (2) m It has stayed the same (3)

What is the main advantage to having plants evaluated by an outside source (such as a commercial grower, public garden, or university)? m Outside evaluation allows for an unbiased opinion (1) m It can help lift some of the financial burden off of the breeders by utilizing the resources of the outside source (2) m The outside source could be a well-known institution that could add credibility to the evaluation (3) m Outside sources have physical resources that the breeder may not have (e.g. field plots) (4) m Other (5) ______

What is the main disadvantage to having plants evaluated by an outside source (such as a commercial grower, public garden, or university)? m We have to pay organizations to trial and evaluate our plants for us (1) m In the past, it has been hard to obtain clear data from outside sources because there was no standardized method of reporting (2) m The outside source may not manage the trials as well as you'd like them to, and it could have a negative impact on the breeder's reputation (3) m Other (4) ______

What is the primary motivation for your employer to be involved in plant evaluation programs? m It is an additional source of income; we charge breeders a fee if they want us to evaluate their plants (1) m We like to be at the forefront of new plant introductions (2) m It's convenient; wholesale buyers can find out about the latest plants and then come to us to place their order. It's like a one-stop shop! (3) m We like to have control over the quality of the trials; we know that we will take care of the plants the best and that will help our reputation in the industry (4) m Other (6) ______

To what extent do you agree with the following statement, "It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta." m 0 (0) m 1 (1) m 2 (2) m 3 (3) m 4 (4) m 5 (5) m 6 (6) m 7 (7) m 8 (8) m 9 (9) m 10 (10)

What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers?

m Instant access to consumer insight (1) m Professional horticulturists conduct the trials (6) m Association with the garden or arboretum provides credibility to the trials (2) m The opportunity to educate the public about plant trials and what plants grow best in their area (3) m It provides an unbiased evaluation of plants in the trial (4) m Other (5) ______

What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers? m Visitors could interfere with the trial plants (1) m It is a public place, so new, unpatented materials can't be kept a secret (2) m The garden/arboreta may manage more for beauty and their own purposes, and therefore may not identify the best genetic or marketability qualities (3) m Over time, a public garden/arboretum might need to use space, time, and money for its own displays and collections, giving less priority to the trial (4) m Other (5) ______

What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens?

What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens? m No access to consumer opinions (1) m No exposure of variety name to consumers as you might get in a public garden or arboretum (4) m Commercial growers may not give as much attention to smaller, lesser-known crops while focusing on just top-selling classes (2) m Other (3) ______

What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens?

m It provides an unbiased evaluation of plants in the trial (1) m Association with the college or university provides credibility to the trials (2) m Plant trials at a college or university contribute to student education (3) m Other (4) ______

What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens? m Having students around means the possibility of mistakes occurring or plants being damaged (1) m Limited funding may not allow for adequate staff to maintain the trial garden (2) m There may be cost associated with sending plant material to a college or university (3) m Other (4) ______

What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens? m The breeding company has total control over its plant materials and when they will be shown to the general public (1) m New plant material is the breeding company's highest priority, so its plant trials will not fall victim to higher priority items (2) m Less money spent transporting plant material to other locations (4) m Other (3) ______

What is the main disadvantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens? m No access to public opinion - breeding companies do not typically see any visitors and therefore get no outside input (1) m The trials may not necessarily be unbiased if the actual breeder of a certain selection is judging the trials (2) m There may not be as much of a variety with which to compare if all of the plant material is coming from just the breeding company (4) m Other (3) ______

Are you familiar with the recently-launched National Plant Trials Database? m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

Answer If Are you familiar with the recently-launched National Plant Trials Database? No Is Selected The National Plant Trials Database (http://www.planttrials.org) is a central repository for plant trials data collected across the country. Participating trial grounds agree to a standardized protocol of trialing and scoring procedures. The database is updated regularly at the end of each trial season. Check it out!

Answer If To what extent do you agree with the following statement, "It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta." 6 Is Selected Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission? m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

Thank you for completing this survey. May I contact you for further research inquiries, such as for a case study or an interview? m Yes (1) m No (2)

Answer If May I contact you for further research inquiries, such as for a case study or an interview? Yes Is Selected Great! Please enter your name, employer, and contact information below. I may contact you at a later date regarding this topic. Thank you again! Name (1) Employer (2) Email Address (3)

Appendix D

SURVEY RESEARCH

Final Survey Results

1. Which of the following best describes your position? # Answer Response %

1 Educator 40 15%

2 Extension Specialist 26 10%

3 Research 47 18%

4 Plant Breeder 32 12%

Trial Garden 5 17 6% Manager 6 Horticulturist 30 11%

Marketing 7 6 2% Representative Greenhouse/Nursery 8 10 4% Manager 9 Commercial Grower 6 2%

Design/Build/Install 10 2 1% Landscaper 11 Senior Management 49 18%

Total 265 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 11 Mean 5.14 Variance 11.91 Standard Deviation 3.45 Total Responses 265

2. Which of the following best describes your employer? # Answer Response %

Public garden 1 60 23% or arboretum College or 2 125 47% University Breeding 3 16 6% company Commercial 4 16 6% production Landscape 5 0 0% industry Professional Organization (ASHS, 6 0 0% AmericanHort, APGA, IPPS, etc.) 7 Self-Employed 13 5%

8 Other 36 14%

Total 266 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 8 Mean 3.01 Variance 5.62 Standard Deviation 2.37 Total Responses 266

3. Is your garden or arboretum affiliated with a college or university? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 14 24%

2 No 45 76%

Total 59 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.76 Variance 0.18 Standard Deviation 0.43 Total Responses 59

4. Is your employer involved in active plant trial programs OR does your employer currently maintain a variety display garden? # Answer Response %

Active plant 1 trial 72 34%

program Variety 2 display 24 11%

garden Both active plant trial 3 115 55% AND variety display Click to 5 write Choice 0 0%

5 Total 211 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 2.20 Variance 0.85 Standard Deviation 0.92 Total Responses 211

5. Do you have interpretive signage for the variety display garden? (Interpretive signage is educational signage that explains to a visitor about the garden or exhibit in front of them.) # Answer Response %

1 Yes 81 60%

2 No 47 35%

3 Not sure 6 4%

Total 134 100%

100

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.44 Variance 0.34 Standard Deviation 0.58 Total Responses 134

6. How would you describe the location of your employer's variety display garden? # Answer Response %

Front and center. It's one 1 of the first 44 33%

things that visitors see. Secondary. It's easy to find, 2 52 39% but not part of a main display. Accessible by the public, but is out of the 3 16 12% way. Many visitors miss it. We consider it to be part of our 4 organization, 22 16%

but it is not accessible by the public. Total 134 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.12 Variance 1.10 Standard Deviation 1.05 Total Responses 134

101

7. How do you conduct your plant trials? # Answer Response %

Independently, within 1 66 41% your own organization For an outside organization (All- 2 8 5% America Selections, Earth Kind, etc.) For a commercial breeding company 3 6 4% (Proven Winners, PanAm, Sakata, etc.) Both independently and for an outside 4 71 44% organization/commercial breeding company 5 Other (please specify) 11 7%

Total 162 100%

Other (please specify) AAS, Ball Hort, Proven Winners funded by commodity groups Independently but also in cooperation with Commodity Commissions and other public prograsm In addition to an independent program of plant procurement and evaluation we are members of the SERA-27 Plant Evaluation Program and participate with 30 University of Kentucky Sites that trial annuals. INDEPENDENTLY, BUT WE ACCEPT PLANT FROM BREEDING COMPANIES IN THE TRIALS Inside the university and grower cooperators Don't know for sure for outside orgs, private breeders, and faculty researchers secure trialing of new introductions at university for all of the above outside organization and connection with local university

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.71 Variance 2.32 Standard Deviation 1.52 Total Responses 162

102

8. For how long has your employer been involved in active plant trials? # Answer Response %

1 0-5 years 13 8%

2 6-10 years 23 14%

3 11-15 years 22 14%

4 16-25 years 19 12%

5 >25 years 84 52%

Total 161 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 3.86 Variance 1.95 Standard Deviation 1.40 Total Responses 161

9. How has the size of your plant trialing program changed in the last 5 years? # Answer Response %

It has 1 87 54% increased It has 2 33 21% decreased It has stayed 3 40 25% the same Total 160 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.71 Variance 0.71 Standard Deviation 0.84 Total Responses 160

10. During what season(s) do you run plant trials? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

1 Summer 154 96%

2 Fall 124 78%

3 Winter 79 49%

4 Spring 128 80%

103

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Total Responses 160

11. What kinds of plants do you include in your trials? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

1 Annuals 104 66%

2 Perennials 116 74%

3 Vegetables 61 39%

4 Woody ornamentals 85 54%

5 Aquatic 7 4%

Tender 6 46 29% perennials/tropicals

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Total Responses 157

12. How would you describe the location of your trial garden? # Answer Response %

Easily accessible by 1 the public, 40 25%

centrally located Easily accessible by 2 the public, but 34 21%

not centrally located Open to the public, but 3 25 16% only by appointment Private, not 4 accessible by 34 21%

the public We have both 5 public and 28 17%

private trials Total 161 100%

104

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.85 Variance 2.10 Standard Deviation 1.45 Total Responses 161

13. Do you have interpretive signage for the trial garden? (Interpretive signage is educational signage that explains to a visitor about the garden or exhibit in front of them.) # Answer Response %

1 Yes 60 49%

2 No 58 48%

3 Not sure 4 3%

Total 122 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.54 Variance 0.32 Standard Deviation 0.56 Total Responses 122

14. How often do you collect data on the plant trials? # Answer Response %

1 Daily 3 2%

2-3 times 2 19 13% per week 3 Weekly 41 27%

Every other 4 21 14% week 5 Monthly 49 33%

Once a year 6 (e.g. woody 15 10%

species) 7 Not at all 2 1%

Total 150 100%

105

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 7 Mean 3.98 Variance 1.82 Standard Deviation 1.35 Total Responses 150

15. Do you collect quantitative or qualitative data on your plant trials? # Answer Response %

Quantitative (e.g. plant 1 height, plant 3 2%

width, flower number, etc.) Qualitative (e.g. flower color, foliage 2 23 15% quality, overall performance, etc.) Both 3 quantitative 124 83%

and qualitative Total 150 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 2.81 Variance 0.20 Standard Deviation 0.44 Total Responses 150

106

16. Who is the primary source of your data collection? # Answer Response %

Data is collected by one individual who is a professional 1 84 56% member of our staff (e.g. the trial garden manager) Data is collected by a trial garden manager/designated 2 horticulturist along 52 34%

with a small (2-3 person) team of assistants Data is collected by 3 different staff 11 7%

members each time Data is collected from consumers and 4 analyzed by our staff 4 3%

(e.g. Peoples' Choice) Total 151 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 1.57 Variance 0.55 Standard Deviation 0.74 Total Responses 151

107

17. Where is your plant trial data published? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

1 Internally 76 51%

2 On our website 55 37%

Professional/trade journals (HortTechnology, HortScience, 3 61 41% GrowerTalks, Public Garden, American Nurseryman, etc.) Home gardening magazines (Better Homes & Gardens, 4 22 15% Fine Gardening, Organic Gardening, etc.) Social Media 5 (Facebook, 17 11%

Twitter, etc.) Centralized trial data website 6 23 15% (National Plant Trials Database) 7 Not sure 19 13%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 7 Total Responses 149

18. Has your institution released any of its own new plants? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 91 59%

2 No 57 37%

3 Not sure 6 4%

Total 154 100%

108

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.45 Variance 0.33 Standard Deviation 0.57 Total Responses 154

19. Has your institution ever held any events around your trials, such as field days for other people in the industry or programs to educate consumers? # Answer Response %

Trial field days (aimed at 1 nursery/landscape 69 45%

industry, breeders, etc.) Educational 2 programs for 37 24%

visitors/consumers We don't hold any 3 events related to 30 20%

our trials Other (please 4 17 11% specify) Total 153 100%

Other (please specify) We hosted the International Trials Symposium in 2013 industry events both one and two WE HOLD BOTH FIELD DAY FOR PROFESSIONALS AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR CONSUMERS tours of research trials our customers (grocery retailers) Field days for professionals AND field days for consumers tiral field days for industry and for public multiple events annually for both industry professionals, master gardeners and consumers field day for the whole institution once a year open to everyone We have not held field days, but we plan to this year Both Trial Field days for industry and a day for consumers very new trial garden - planning to host events both professional and public education We hold an international judging day in late May each year with an awards ceremony. AmericanHort (OFA) bus tour aas meeting

109

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 1.97 Variance 1.10 Standard Deviation 1.05 Total Responses 153

20. Does your employer evaluate plants internally and/or through an outside source (commercial grower, public garden/arboretum, college or university)? # Answer Response %

1 Internally 1 7%

Outside source (commercial grower, public 2 0 0% garden/arboretum, college or university) Both internally and 3 through an outside 14 93%

source 4 Not sure 0 0%

6 Other 0 0%

Total 15 100%

Other

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 2.87 Variance 0.27 Standard Deviation 0.52 Total Responses 15

110

21. What kinds of plants does your employer breed? (Choose all that apply.) # Answer Response %

1 Annuals 9 60%

2 Perennials 9 60%

3 Vegetables 13 87%

4 Woody ornamentals 5 33%

5 Aquatic 0 0%

Tender 6 3 20% perennials/tropicals

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Total Responses 15

111

22. What is the typical process that your employer undergoes when preparing a plant for commercial release? # Answer Response %

Private trial in-house, then 1 1 7% commercial release Private trial in-house, followed by private trial 2 13 87% at an outside source, then commercial release Private trial in-house, followed by public trial at 3 0 0% an outside source, then commercial release Only public trials, then 4 0 0% commercial release 5 Other 1 7%

Total 15 100%

Other after [rivate trials we use a combination of private and public trials depending on product

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.13 Variance 0.70 Standard Deviation 0.83 Total Responses 15

23. What sources for outside evaluation do you use the most? Please rank in order by dragging each choice to its

112

appropriate ranking, with 1 being the most used and 4 being the least used/not used at all. Total # Answer 1 2 3 4 Responses 1 Commercial Grower 12 1 0 0 13 Public 2 0 1 7 5 13 Garden/Arboretum 3 College/Universtiy 0 4 6 3 13 Private/Independent 4 1 7 0 5 13 Evaluator Total 13 13 13 13 -

Commercial Public Private/Independent Statistic College/Universtiy Grower Garden/Arboretum Evaluator Min Value 1 2 2 1 Max Value 2 4 4 4 Mean 1.08 3.31 2.92 2.69 Variance 0.08 0.40 0.58 1.23 Standard 0.28 0.63 0.76 1.11 Deviation Total 13 13 13 13 Responses

24. How has the amount of plant material sent for private OR public trial at public gardens or arboreta changed in the past 5 years? # Answer Response %

It has 1 4 33% increased It has 2 5 42% decreased It has stayed 3 3 25% the same Total 12 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.92 Variance 0.63 Standard Deviation 0.79 Total Responses 12

113

25. What is the main advantage to having plants evaluated by an outside source (such as a commercial grower, public garden, or university)? # Answer Response %

Outside evaluation 1 allows for an 8 53%

unbiased opinion It can help lift some of the financial burden off of 2 the breeders 0 0%

by utilizing the resources of the outside source The outside source could be a well- known institution 3 3 20% that could add credibility to the evaluation Outside sources have physical resources 4 1 7% that the breeder may not have (e.g. field plots) 5 Other 3 20%

Total 15 100%

Other allows for screening in a more diverse set of environments and potential consumers commercial grower trials have a promotional opportunity outsider may see things through a different lens

114

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.40 Variance 2.83 Standard Deviation 1.68 Total Responses 15

26. What is the main disadvantage to having plants evaluated by an outside source (such as a commercial grower, public garden, or university)? # Answer Response %

We have to pay organizations 1 to trial and 4 27%

evaluate our plants for us In the past, it has been hard to obtain clear data from outside 2 sources 7 47%

because there was no standardized method of reporting The outside source may not manage the trials as well as you'd like them to, 3 3 20% and it could have a negative impact on the breeder's reputation 4 Other 1 7%

Total 15 100%

Other no disadvantage I can see

115

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.07 Variance 0.78 Standard Deviation 0.88 Total Responses 15

116

27. What is the primary motivation for your employer to be involved in plant evaluation programs? # Answer Response %

It is an additional source of income; we 1 charge 6 6%

breeders a fee if they want us to evaluate their plants We like to be at the 2 forefront of 44 41%

new plant introductions It's convenient; wholesale buyers can find out about the latest 3 2 2% plants and then come to us to place their order. It's like a one-stop shop! We like to have control over the quality of the trials; we know that we 4 17 16% will take care of the plants the best and that will help our reputation in the industry 6 Other 38 36%

Total 107 100%

117

Other Support of another non-profit organization and provides a learning opportunity for guests. internal trailing of breeding material It is part of our mission public service as part of a university research program Both reasons 2 and 3 part of our program Evaluate our own plants comparison with other commercial products Extension-based source of trial information for producers and the public. Plant evaluation is part of product development research interest Critical part of the evaluation process of breeding material educational, both for faculty/students and for growers Part of our breeding program SERVICE TO INDUSTRY AND CONSUMERS. ITS OUR JOB TO PROVIDE RESEARCH-BASED INFORMATION Involve students and they enjoy working with new cultivars service to both the public and the green industry Part of our educational mission to support research by University professors university research is part of our job and impacts our evaluation and promotion Environmental Stewardship Education teaching, outreach Opportunity for trades people in industry to see what is new compared to established commercial varieties. want to know how our cultivars (released and non-released) perform in relation to others on the market; there are not many places for woody plant trialing especially locally to determine the best varieties to grow and recommend to our customers generates income and a priority for our gardens education & research university plant breeding program we want to promote plants native to our region Objective non-biased and regional evaluations to identify ornamental and stress/pest tolerant cultivars To promote to the public to help plant users to make good decisions both B and D We mostly evaluate breeding material from our own programs as a basis for deciding which lines to distribute internationally relevance to the urban public

118

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 3.70 Variance 3.53 Standard Deviation 1.88 Total Responses 107

28. To what extent do you agree with the following statement, "It is important to have plant trial programs at public gardens and arboreta." # Answer Response %

0 0 2 1%

1 1 0 0%

2 2 3 1%

3 3 1 0%

4 4 1 0%

5 5 20 9%

6 6 12 5%

7 7 28 12%

8 8 53 23%

9 9 39 17%

10 10 76 32%

Total 235 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 0 Max Value 10 Mean 8.15 Variance 3.72 Standard Deviation 1.93 Total Responses 235

119

29. What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers? # Answer Response %

Instant access 1 to consumer 14 6%

insight Association with the garden or 2 arboretum 18 8%

provides credibility to the trials The opportunity to educate the public about 3 126 54% plant trials and what plants grow best in their area It provides an unbiased 4 evaluation of 50 22%

plants in the trial 5 Other 12 5%

Professional horticulturists 6 12 5% conduct the trials Total 232 100%

120

Other For internal use, to assure that new plants being added to the gardens are going to perform as desired. All of these are important advatages, but for most important i would say its a tie between the opportunity to educate the public and an unbiased evaluation education and unbiased evaluations All of the above! to be relevant and a respectable public garden truly serving the public and connected to the greater industry Helps to promote the industry at locations with many visitor. Ability to see mature specimens We are a University Not an activity we would consider or be involved in All of the above pretty much all of the above don't agree

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 3.28 Variance 1.14 Standard Deviation 1.07 Total Responses 232

121

30. What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at public gardens and arboreta as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or commercial growers? # Answer Response %

Visitors could 1 interfere with the 32 14%

trial plants It is a public place, so new, 2 unpatented 37 16%

materials can't be kept a secret The garden/arboreta may manage more for beauty and their own 3 purposes, and 62 27%

therefore may not identify the best genetic or marketability qualities Over time, a public garden/arboretum might need to use space, time, and 4 money for its own 81 35%

displays and collections, giving less priority to the trial 5 Other 17 7%

Total 229 100%

122

Other The manager of the grounds is the key to having a properly run trial garden. It must be run by an individual who knows or understands the process and takes it seriously. Public gardens may not always have an individual with these skills. Don't see a down side These choices don't fit our use of a trial garden. I donlt see any disadvantages of having trials at public gardens lack of funds, priorities and trials are not always beautiful and showy The use of the plant may not be fully taken advantage of Exposure to a broader group of comsumers lack of funds for maintenance Limited Resources provide by public organization NOt enough control of the trials and how they are conducted. could over-emphasize latest horticultural varieties in lieu of broader ecological values of plant species i don't see a disadvantage I see a conflict between the goals of the hort companies and the garden's education mission no downside accessibility where gardens are not active

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 3.06 Variance 1.37 Standard Deviation 1.17 Total Responses 229

123

31. What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

It is a good way for growers to determine whether or not 1 101 44% they may want to produce those varieties for future sales A commercial grower's trial garden is visited by retail store buyers 2 31 14% and it a perfect sales tool to get those varieties in with the major retailers 3 Other 13 6%

Commercial growers can offer private, 4 19 8% inaccessible-to- the-public trials Professional horticulturists 6 5 2% conduct the trial Commercial growers trial 7 results based 30 13%

on marketability Commercial growers have a very thorough knowledge of 8 29 13% all similar varieties currently on the market Total 228 100%

124

Other It is more a combination of bullets 2 & 6 in my opinion Don't know, we are not involved in those sorts of trials. Commercial Growers can validate whether or not a product can be produced in a consistent and profitable way - ensuring that it can reach consumers. it expands the number of new plants and overall work in new plants share in the cost of the trial commercial growers look at and compare the attractiveness of the plant with other plants currently on the market, but also evaluate the ease of growing the plant in production. both, commercial and universities / public is best no advantage real world test All of the above are equally important As a commercial grower, we use our trials to evaluate potential additions and as a source of photography for marketing -- catalog, website, tags. no opinion have monies to do this

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 8 Mean 3.29 Variance 7.42 Standard Deviation 2.72 Total Responses 228

125

32. What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at commercial growers as opposed to breeding companies, colleges/universities, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

No access to 1 consumer 33 15%

opinions Commercial growers may not give as much attention to 2 smaller, 131 58%

lesser-known crops while focusing on just top- selling classes 3 Other 36 16%

No exposure of variety name to consumers as 4 25 11% you might get in a public garden or arboretum Total 225 100%

126

Other A commercial grower will evaluate based on growing inputs, marketabilty and shelf life versus what is best for a home owner or consumer. Don't know, we are not involved in those sorts of trials. They are less likely to conduct valid quantitative comparisons and evaluations Commercial Growers might bring their own biases into the trial. Commercial growers focus on profitability and saleability, rather than performance in a home garden The results of trials done by persons with a vest financial interest are always suspect may not have public value in mind, may only grow a limited number of plants, top sellers or plants with other features that are important to the commercial company and not the general public no comaprisons between commercial product lines Baised for their preferences rather than general public needs. They often miss the potential opportunities as they are inwardly focused on themselves versus trying to find ways to serve the public and changing their practices to capitalize on new market opportunities Commercial growers are in a hurry and short-circuit the process comparisons are not always valid Growers keep information to themselves for competitive reaseons Bias quality of execution none Failure of the trial due to weather or grower neglect colleges/universities/public gardens more likely to be unbiased Grower time and other inputs to keep trials up locality TRIALS ARE NOT CONDUCTED UNDER LOCAL GROWING CONDITIONS SUCH AS GULF COAST REGION less opportunities for public education trial may get ignored if they get busy with their business Our developments are strictly for our own customers so we want to control access and exposure Commercial growers may limit access since the trials are not public limited audience with access to information Quality Control Not sure Breeding companies know what to use as comparisons in the trial. More control over the trial. Commercial growers could be very biased in their trials. marketability is #1 I see no disadvantage. no downside other than expense no opinion Commercial growers in developing countries often have small holdings and are limited in the number of entries they can test

127

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.24 Variance 0.70 Standard Deviation 0.84 Total Responses 225

33. What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

It provides an unbiased 1 evaluation of 105 46%

plants in the trial Association with the college or 2 university 49 21%

provides credibility to the trials Plant trials at a college or university 3 62 27% contribute to student education 4 Other 12 5%

Total 228 100%

Other Don't know, we are not involved in those sorts of trials. all of the above all of the above Ability to work on under-represented crops all of the above all of the above Again would not participate with our own materials so not applicable to us long term availability of land all of the above wide public exposure no opinion None of the above

128

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 1.92 Variance 0.94 Standard Deviation 0.97 Total Responses 228

129

34. Great! Please enter your name, employer, and contact information below. I may contact you at a later date regarding this topic. Thank you again! Name Employer Email Address University of Illinois CD Anderson [email protected] Arboretum James Newburn Univ. of Tennessee [email protected] Brian Kanotz Callaway Gardens [email protected] Ted Bilderback JC Raulston Arboretum [email protected] Matt Taylor LWG you have it :) Tomasz Anisko [email protected] Lloyd Traven Peace Tree Farm [email protected] Barrett Wilson Longwood Gardens [email protected] Charles Gleaves Kingwood Center [email protected] Susan Barton University of Delaware [email protected] Dan Benarcik Chanticleer [email protected] Molly Davis University of Kentucky [email protected] Jim Harbage Longwood Gardens [email protected] Dennis Collins Mount Auburn Cemetery [email protected] Reiman Gardens - Iowa Jessie Liebenguth [email protected] State University Brett O'Brien Columbia Mo. P&R [email protected] Jim Willmott US Botanic Garden [email protected] bill thomas chanticleer [email protected] Hahn Horticulture Stephanie Huckestein [email protected] Garden at Virginia Tech Walt Disney World Melissa Shepherd [email protected] (Florida) University of Tennessee Beth Willis [email protected] Gardens Aimee Coker PDSI [email protected] The University of John Ruter [email protected] Georgia Tom Johns Self/Territorial Seed Co [email protected] F & B Farms and Leigh Geschwill [email protected] Nursery Connie William Dam Seeds [email protected] Cleveland Botanical Ann McCulloh [email protected] Garden Temple University, Anne Brennan [email protected] Ambler Campus The Ohio State Lindsay Pangborn [email protected] University George Coombs Mt. Cuba Center [email protected] Bernadette Clark NCSU [email protected] MSU Horticulture Daedre Craig [email protected] Gardens Sherrie Benson University of Alberta [email protected]

130

Devonian Botanic Garden Charles Voigt University of Illinois [email protected] Sarada Krishnan Denver Botanic Gardens [email protected] Laminack, Pirtle & Gaye Hammond [email protected] Martines Mary Meyer U of Minnesota [email protected] Cindi Baker Chicago botanic Garden Douglas Justice UBC Botanical Garden [email protected] University of Hawaii at Jayme Tims Grzebik [email protected] Manoa David Zlesak Univ of WI River Falls [email protected] Mary Lu Arpaia University of California [email protected] James Robbins University of Arkansas [email protected] Stephen Love University of Idaho [email protected] Ball Horticultural Will Healy [email protected] Company Kathy Haynes USDA-ARS [email protected] Mark Yelanich Metrolina Greenhouses [email protected] Patrick Byers MU Extension [email protected] Texas A&M Michael Arnold University/Texas AgriLife Research Todd Perkins Syngenta Flowers [email protected] D. Richards AHC, Inc. [email protected] North Dakota State Todd West [email protected] University New Mexico State Paul Bosland [email protected] University Nina Bassuk Cornell University [email protected] John Ferguson Nature's Way Resources [email protected] West Virginia State Barbara Liedl [email protected] University Mun Wye Chng Uni of Florida [email protected] Va Donnan Sunshine Horticulture [email protected] Francis R. Gouin Retired [email protected] Washington State Nnadozie Oraguzie [email protected] Universiy Terry Berke Monsanto [email protected] Charlie Johnson LSU [email protected] Jim Faust Clemson University [email protected] John Dole NCSU [email protected] Univ. of California, Mikeal Roose [email protected] Riverside Stewart Reed USDA-ARS [email protected] Tom Williams Retired from Syngenta [email protected] Pablo Johrdan The ohio state university [email protected] Doug Bailey University of Georgia [email protected] Howard Harrison USDA [email protected] Chad Finn USDA-ARS [email protected]

131

Cornell Cooperative Nora Catlin [email protected] Extension - Suffolk New York State Elizabeth Lamb Integrated Pest [email protected] Management Margaret Pooler USDA-ARS [email protected] Win Dunwell University of Kentucky [email protected] REGINA BRACY LSU AGCENTER [email protected] Jenny Carleo Rutgers University [email protected] Karen Panter University of Wyoming [email protected] Rutgers Cooperative Ray Samulis [email protected] Extension Missouri State Pam Trewatha [email protected] University Donald Merhaut Univ. of CA., Riverside [email protected] Mark Widrlechner Iowa State University [email protected] James McConnell University of Guam [email protected] The Ohio State Claudio Pasian [email protected] University Bruce Crawford Rutgers Gardens [email protected] Cary Rivard Kansas State University [email protected] Joy Kaminsky Cantigny Park [email protected] Stephanie Walker New Mexico State Univ. [email protected] Courtland Nichols Amsa Seed Co [email protected] Steve George Texas A&M University [email protected] Larry Pierce Duda Farm Fresh Foods [email protected] University of Florida Gary Knox [email protected] NFREC Lewis Ginter Botanical Grace Chapman [email protected] Garden Bill Barnes Barnes Hort Services [email protected] Alan Stevens Kansas State Univ [email protected] Loyola University Maren Blohm [email protected] Maryland Oscar Arias Agribiotecnología de CR [email protected] Kentucky state Kirk Pomper [email protected] university Texas A&M AgriLife Greg Church [email protected] Extension Service Dan Parfitt UC Davis [email protected] Swanson's Nursery Bert T. Swanson, II [email protected] Consulting, Inc.

Statistic Value Total Responses 156

132

35. What do you think is the main disadvantage to having trials at colleges/universities as opposed to breeding companies, commercial growers, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

Having students around means the 1 possibility of 15 7%

mistakes occurring or plants being damaged Limited funding may not allow for 2 adequate 164 73%

staff to maintain the trial garden There may be cost associated with sending 3 20 9% plant material to a college or university 4 Other 26 12%

Total 225 100%

133

Other I believe it comes back to who is managing the garden once again. If it is run properly there are no concerns, if not then there are many! Don't know, we are not involved in those sorts of trials. Lack of consumer input Limited funding limits the number of trials. limited funding requires universities to rely on commercial nurseries and breeders for plant material. There may be a conflict of interest when review these plants. all of the above There is so little funding for trials because results are not considered journal-worthy that colleges force closure of trial gardens and promote only research that gets buckets of overhead dollars quality of execution none lack of Money to do the trials A lack of focus on the individual crosses lack of confidentiality would not participate because counter to our purposes I can't think of a disadvantage, but I don't think the 3 options listed apply security may be an issue above choices would be true for all trial sites Limited public interaction Limited funding may not allow for adequate staff or adequate display space or numbers of flowers displayed. students will not have the eye for detail that growers or breeders will have - it is trainable Funding $'s may give one breeder / grower preferencial treatment. Univ vs commercial institutions have different goals , there would have to be a solid agreement on costs incurred and resp not having long term follow through as students transition through college and graduate. no opinion consistency of evaluation None of the above

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.25 Variance 0.56 Standard Deviation 0.75 Total Responses 225

134

36. What do you think is the main advantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

The breeding company has total control over its plant 1 materials and 65 29%

when they will be shown to the general public New plant material is the breeding company's highest 2 priority, so its 135 61%

plant trials will not fall victim to higher priority items 3 Other 15 7%

Less money spent transporting 4 7 3% plant material to other locations Total 222 100%

135

Other don't agree with any of the above Does not apply Breeding company maintains responsibility for all costs breeding companies have genetic knowledge about material that the other trail areas wouldn't nessecarely have Ability to keep patented material within their control didn't I just answer this, same answer as before less cost for growers/institutions they need to do their own trials internally, but then there needs to be some independence and transparency beyond that for credibility. It says little to me when they say their variety is the best and at pack trials theirs look the best in their displays none Very knowledgeable about what is marketable and what is not. costs covered by company no advantage no opinion

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 1.84 Variance 0.46 Standard Deviation 0.68 Total Responses 222

136

37. What is the main disadvantage to having trials at breeding companies as opposed to colleges/universities, commercial growers, or public gardens? # Answer Response %

No access to public opinion - breeding companies do 1 not typically 36 16%

see any visitors and therefore get no outside input The trials may not necessarily be unbiased if the actual 2 115 52% breeder of a certain selection is judging the trials 3 Other 15 7%

There may not be as much of a variety with which to compare if all 4 57 26% of the plant material is coming from just the breeding company Total 223 100%

137

Other Does not apply different priorities in private and public work Breeders' selection criteria are making money-- other interesting attributes might be sidelined for profit limited public exposure In our case no disadvantage Breeders will only spend time on top sellers and plants that they can turn around quickly and can ignore great plants that take longer to move from nursery to garden center shelf. trial compaeisons may be selected for marketing advantage company may want control of material No disadvantage. Just different purposes. need trials across many areas to get reliable information. no opinion none Lack of performance data for different regions of the country

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 2.42 Variance 1.08 Standard Deviation 1.04 Total Responses 223

38. Are you familiar with the recently-launched National Plant Trials Database? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 77 34%

2 No 140 61%

3 Not sure 12 5%

Total 229 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.72 Variance 0.31 Standard Deviation 0.56 Total Responses 229

138

39. Do you think it is important for public gardens and arboreta to have plant trialing as part of their mission? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 147 74%

2 No 21 11%

3 Not sure 30 15%

Total 198 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.41 Variance 0.55 Standard Deviation 0.74 Total Responses 198

40. Thank you for completing this survey. May I contact you for further research inquiries, such as for a case study or an interview? # Answer Response %

1 Yes 163 71%

2 No 65 29%

Total 228 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.29 Variance 0.20 Standard Deviation 0.45 Total Responses 228

139

Appendix E

INTERVIEW RESEARCH

Interview Questions

• History/background of the trial – How & why did they start? When did they start? • Mission & goals of the garden. What are you trying to accomplish with the gardens? • What kinds of plants are featured and why? • Staffing for the garden – how many full-time staff work on the garden, and in what capacity? (i.e. horticulturist vs. marketing vs. administrative) • Who comes to visit the garden and why? Typical visitors/who is your audience? • Where do you get the plants? • Where is your data published? • Future of the gardens – what is your strategic plan for the garden space? • How does the institution use the gardens? • What role do you think public gardens and arboreta play in the plant breeding process? • Why do you think breeders should or shouldn’t send plant material to public gardens for trialing and/or variety displays? • Should research and plant trialing be a mission of public gardens? Should that be left to breeders/universities/growers?

140

Appendix F

IRB LETTER OF EXEMPTION

RESEARCH OFFICE 210 Hullihen Hall University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19716-1551 Ph: 302/831-2136 Fax: 302/831-2828

DATE: August 14, 2014

TO: Sarah Leach Smith FROM: University of Delaware IRB

STUDY TITLE: [535936-3] Plant Trial Programs

SUBMISSION TYPE: Amendment/Modification

ACTION: DETERMINATION OF EXEMPT STATUS DECISION DATE: August 14, 2014

REVIEW CATEGORY: Exemption category # (2)

Thank you for your submission of Amendment/Modification materials for this research study. The University of Delaware IRB has determined this project is EXEMPT FROM IRB REVIEW according to federal regulations.

We will put a copy of this correspondence on file in our office. Please remember to notify us if you make any substantial changes to the project.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Farnese-McFarlane at (302) 831-1119 or [email protected]. Please include your study title and reference number in all correspondence with this office.

- 1 - Generated on IRBNet

141

Appendix G

ORAL CONSENT FORM

University of Delaware Oral Consent Form

Evaluation of Trial Garden Practices at Public Horticulture Institutions

Hi, my name is Sarah Leach Smith. I’m working on a my graduate thesis about plant trial programs from the University of Delaware’s Department of Plant and Soil Science. Do you have a few minutes to discuss this topic?

• If yes, continue below. • If no, but the potential subject is interested in participating, determine a better time to call back to discuss the study. • If no, thank them for their time.

I am inviting you to take part in this study because you are a professional with insight into plant breeding, plant evaluation, new plant introduction, or public horticulture. The purpose of this study is to complete an overall evaluation of plant trial programs at public horticulture institutions, including botanic gardens and arboreta. I want to find out how many institutions are conducting plant trials, why or why not, and see if plant trials conducted at public gardens hold any more or less weight in the horticulture industry than trials conducted at private establishments such as seed companies.

If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to answer a series of questions regarding the plant evaluation process at your institution. Questions are taken from a survey I administered earlier in the year, and you will be asked to elaborate on your answers from that survey.

I estimate that approximately 15 people will take part in interviews for this study. Your participation will last about 30 minutes, or as long as you wish to be interviewed. If there are any questions that you are not prepared to answer or do not feel comfortable answering, you may skip that question.

You will not be paid for participating in this study. There will be no cost to you to participate in this study.

Does this sound like something you’d be willing to participate in?

• If yes, continue below. • If no, thank them for their time.

142

Before you agree to participate, there are some additional things you should know about the study.

In order to collect study information, I have to get your permission to use your name and your organization’s name. I will use your name, title, employer’s name and interview responses

I will keep the information I collect for 3 years, and it will be housed on the University of Delaware servers. If you cancel your permission, you will be removed from the study.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free not to participate or to withdraw at any time, for whatever reason. No matter what decision you make, there will be no penalty or loss of benefit to which you are entitled.

I would like to audio-record our interview so that I may include relevant quotes and information in my thesis. If you do not wish to be recorded, but still wish to participate in this study, your request will be honored and no recording will be created. Similarly, when applicable, I would like to take relevant photos of the gardens or trial areas at your institution. If you do not want me to take photos, your request will be honored and no photos will be taken.

Do you have any questions? Do you agree to participate in this study?

Yes, agrees to participate, be audio-recorded, and allows photos to be taken: Document oral consent below and continue with the interview.

Yes, agrees to participate and allows photos to be taken, but does not wish to be audio-recorded: Document oral consent below and continue with the interview.

Yes, agrees to participate and be audio-recorded, but does not want photos to be taken: Document oral consent below and continue with the interview.

Yes, agrees to participate, but does not want to be audio-recorded and does not want any photos taken: Document oral consent below and continue with the interview.

No: Thank them for their time.

Name of Subject:

______

143

Person Obtaining Consent I have read this form to the subject. An explanation of the research was given and questions from the subject were solicited and answered to the subject’s satisfaction. In my judgment, the subject has demonstrated comprehension of the information. The subject has provided oral consent to participate in this study.

Name and Title (Print)

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

144