Citizen Science, Plant Species, and Communities' Diversity and Conservation on a Mediterranean Biosphere Reserve

sustainability

Article Citizen Science, Plant Species, and Communities’ Diversity and Conservation on a Mediterranean Biosphere Reserve

Maria Panitsa 1,* , Nikolia Iliopoulou 2 and Emmanouil Petrakis 2

1 Department of Biology, Division of Plant Biology, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece 2 Arsakeio Lyceum of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece; [email protected] (N.I.); [email protected] (E.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Citizen science can serve as a tool to address environmental and conservation issues. In the framework of Erasmus+ project CS4ESD, this study focuses on promoting the importance of plants and plant species and communities’ diversity by using available web-based information because of Covid-19 limitations and concerning the case study of Olympus mountain Biosphere Reserve (Greece). A questionnaire was designed to collect the necessary information, aiming to investigate pupils’ and students’ willing to distinguish and learn more about plant species and communities and evaluate information found on the web. Pupils, students, and experts participated in this study. The results are indicative of young citizens’ ability to evaluate environmental issues. They often underestimate plant species richness, endemism, plant communities, the importance of plants, and ecosystem services. They also use environmental or plant-based websites and online available data in a signiﬁcantly different way than experts. The age of the young citizens is a factor that may affect the quality of data. The essential issue of recognizing the importance of plants and Citation: Panitsa, M.; Iliopoulou, N.; plant communities and of assisting for their conservation is highlighted. Education for sustainable Petrakis, E. Citizen Science, Plant development is one of the most important tools that facilitates environmental knowledge and Species, and Communities’ Diversity enhances awareness. and Conservation on a Mediterranean Biosphere Reserve. Sustainability 2021, Keywords: Olympus Biosphere Reserve; plant blindness; SDG15; education for sustainable development 13, 9925. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13179925

Academic Editors: 1. Introduction Kostas Kougioumoutzis and Panayiotis Dimitrakopoulos Citizen science is implemented in many topics, raising awareness and enabling learning, and it can be a tool for environmental and conservation issues [1–5] by providing Received: 2 July 2021 opportunities to generate new knowledge, enabling learning, facilitating environmen- Accepted: 31 August 2021 tal knowledge, enhancing awareness, building capacities, strengthening communities, Published: 3 September 2021 and enabling civic participation [3,6,7]. Smart mobile devices and online networks are useful for citizen scientists, for data collection, storage, and dissemination [8–10]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Conservation-based citizen science includes individuals’ awareness for sustainabil- with regard to jurisdictional claims in ity [1]. Many of the most important current topics, including global warming, sustainability published maps and institutional affil- of terrestrial ecosystems, desertification, land degradation, biodiversity loss, food security, iations. and need for new pharmaceuticals, include plants, plant diversity, and plant communities. Sustainable ecosystems can relate to the aims of ecological citizen-science projects, as sug- gested in the characteristics of citizen science defined by the EU-Citizen.Science project [11]. Citizen science has the potential to contribute to monitoring the progress of the United Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [12,13]. Citizens with basic knowledge on Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. plants and plant species and communities’ diversity can report accurate data concerning This article is an open access article biodiversity monitoring, protection, and sustainability, as targets of SDG 15—Life on Land. distributed under the terms and SDG 15 is under great pressure from human activities today and could raise the profile of conditions of the Creative Commons conservation within the broader community [14]. In this context, Ferrari et al. [7] under- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// lined that citizen science is of relevance to environmental monitoring and assessment in the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ implementation of SDGs. Biodiversity monitoring includes plant species and communities’ 4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179925 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 2 of 11

diversity monitoring and is an issue that is being addressed in connection with SDG 15. The target of SDG 15 is to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, to manage forests sustainably, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss. There is an important issue concerning the fundamental inability of humans to recognize the contribution of plants to a functioning planet or to keeping humans and all other life forms alive [15–29]. The inability to see or notice the plants in one’s own environment, leading to the inability to recognize the importance of plants in the biosphere and in human affairs, defines broadly plant blindness [30,31]. Overcoming plant blindness, enhancing plant awareness, and promoting the importance of plants can lead to the prevention of their extinction and to their sustainable conservation [9,32–36]. Education for sustainable development can enable learners develop sustainability competences [37–39], including, among others, place-based environmental education and traditional ecological knowledge [40]. It is important to educate young people on the importance of plants, plant species richness, and plant communities for ecosystem functioning at local scales. Biodiversity is critical for ecosystem services and human well-being [41–44] and young citizens should be informed, educated, and sensitized. Biodiversity can serve both as a regulator of ecosystem functions [45,46] or as an indicator for an ecosystem service, and for this reason, citizen science projects surveying biodiversity are related to ecosystem service assessments [47]. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential of using data from long-term citizen science projects to answer questions about the impacts of unexpected events on biodiversity [48], creating an opportunity to understand public information-seeking behavior at the human–environment nexus [49]. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was not possible for researchers and citizen scientists to visit protected areas, national parks, and biosphere reserves for fieldwork and this situation has turned their interest to re- mote online interactions [50–53]. Greater visitor engagement has been developed through app-based interpretive and citizen science materials during their national park visits, and app-based citizen science programs like iNaturalist, eBird, etc. [50]. This study is realized in the framework of Erasmus+ project CS4ESD (Citizen Science for Education in Sustainable Development) that uses citizen science-based tools and mobile applications to equip students to engage more deeply with the natural environment. This project is focused on citizens’ awareness, especially in protected areas, such as biosphere reserves. Modern ways of recognizing different plant species using smart devices, citizen- friendly applications, and databases concerning plants and plant communities can give them inspiration, cure plant blindness, and make citizens part of the effort to improve some of the serious environmental problems of the new decade. Field visits and field work are necessary to give young citizens the chance to walk through natural ecosystems in protected areas and be educated on how to distinguish different plant species and animal species, to monitor and evaluate plant species and communities’ diversity, and to be part of their conservation. The Covid-19 pandemic has deprived pupils and students participating in the project of the opportunity to visit Olympus UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in Greece. Mount Olympus is the highest mountain in Greece, a national park, and a Natura 2000 site. It is characterized by very rich biodiversity, including unique endemic plant taxa and very well conserved vegetation communities. The Covid-19 pandemic has affected public interest in the world’s national parks and a sharp decrease was measured also by the relative search volume on Google Search [54]. In this study, we focus on promoting the importance of plants and plant species diversity to young citizens, pupils, and students, by using web-based information because of Covid- 19 limitations, concerning the Olympus mountain Biosphere Reserve. The aim of the study was to investigate their ability to use web-based information on plants and plant communities, their perception of their importance and of the ecosystem services they offer through the case study of Olympus Biosphere Reserve, and to propose how young citizens could contribute more to the targets of SDG 15 and biodiversity conservation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 3 of 12

communities, their perception of their importance and of the ecosystem services they offer Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 3 of 11 through the case study of Olympus Biosphere Reserve, and to propose how young citizens could contribute more to the targets of SDG 15 and biodiversity conservation.

2.2. Materials Materials and and Methods Methods 2.1.2.1. Study Study Area—Olympus Area—Olympus Mountain Mountain Biosphere Biosphere Reserve Reserve MountMount Olympus Olympus is is a a legendary legendary area area as as the the place place of of the the 12 12 gods gods of of Greek Greek mythology. mythology. TheThe highest highest timberline timberline in in Europe Europe occurs occurs on on this this mountain, mountain, which which is also is also characterized characterized by aby verya very rich rich biodiversity. biodiversity. Mount Mount Olympus Olympus National National Park Park (Figure (Figure1) was 1) recognizedwas recognized as part as ofpart theof international the international network network of UNESCO of UNESCO Biosphere Biosphere Reserves Reserves in 1981. in 1981. The site The of site the of Olympus the Olym‐ Nationalpus National Park ManagementPark Management Agency Agency (https://olympusfd.gr/en/ (https://olympusfd.gr/en/ (accessed (accessed on on 21 21 April April 2021))2021)) presents presents information information about about Olympus Olympus Biosphere Biosphere Reserve’s Reserve’s biodiversity. biodiversity.

FigureFigure 1. 1.Location Location of of Olympus Olympus Mountain Mountain Biosphere Biosphere Reserve Reserve (Greece). (Greece).

2.2.2.2. Plant Plant and and Vegetation Vegetation Diversity Diversity ConcerningConcerning the the flora flora of of the the Olympus Olympus Mountain Mountain National National Park, Park, the the site site of of the the Olym- Olym‐ puspus National National Park Park Management Management Agency Agency mentions mentions in in https://olympusfd.gr/en/flora/# https://olympusfd.gr/en/flora/# (ac‐ (accessedcessed on on 12 12 April April 2021) 2021) that that it represents 25%25% of of all all Greek Greek flora flora [ 55[55],], and and that that about about 9.4% 9.4% ofof the the plant plant taxa taxa recorded recorded in in the the Olympus Olympus area area are are rare, rare, endemic, endemic, and/or and/or protected protected [56 [56].]. ThisThis site site presents presents a a table table with with the the species species protectedprotected according to Annexes Annexes II, II, IV, IV, and and V V of ofthe the Directive Directive 92/43/EE 92/43/EE and and photographs photographs of of25 25plant plant taxa taxa (7 (7of ofthem them endemic endemic and/or and/or pro‐ protected).tected). Olympus Olympus mountain mountain flora flora are are rich rich in GreekGreek endemicendemic taxa taxa among among which which 26 26 local local endemicsendemics as asJancaea Jancaea heldreichii heldreichii(Boiss.) (Boiss.) Boiss., Boiss., a relica relic of of the the Tertiary Tertiary period. period. OlympusOlympus is is characterized characterized by by a widea wide variety variety of of vegetation vegetation types types formed formed by by its its intense intense topographictopographic relief, relief, short short distance distance from from the sea, the andsea, theand existence the existence of many of many micro-environments micro‐environ‐ (https://olympusfd.gr/en/vegetation/ments (https://olympusfd.gr/en/vegetation/ (accessed (accessed on 12 April on 12 2021)). April In 2021)). general, In fourgeneral, vegeta- four tionvegetation zones can zones be distinguished can be distinguished on Mount on Olympus: Mount Olympus: i. Broad-leaved evergreens, at 300–500 m, dominated by shrubs and low trees, i. Βroad‐leaved evergreens, at 300–500 m, dominated by shrubs and low trees, such as such as Quercus ilex L., Arbutus andrachne L., Quercus coccifera L., Arbutus unedo L., Quercus ilex L., Arbutus andrachne L., Quercus coccifera L., Arbutus unedo L., Juniperus Juniperus oxycedrus L., etc., and deciduous species, such as Fraxinus ornus L., oxycedrus L., etc., and deciduous species, such as Fraxinus ornus L., Acer monspes‐ Acer monspessulanum L., Cercis siliquastrum L., and Cotinus coggygria Scop. sulanum L., Cercis siliquastrum L., and Cotinus coggygria Scop. ii. Forest of beech-fir and mountain conifers, at 600–1400 m, with pure stands of Pinus nigra J.F. Arnold. Species like Abies borisii-regis Mattf., Fagus sylvatica L., Ulmus glabra Huds., and Taxus baccata L. participate in smaller clusters and stands. iii. Cold-hardy conifers, adapted to specific local conditions, at 1400–2500 m, with Pinus heldreichii Christ predominating among pines on dry with rocky slopes. iv. Non-forested high mountain meadows and grasslands displaying great plant diversity are found above 2500 m, which is also the highest tree line in the Balkans. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 4 of 11

v. There are also azonal forests with Platanus orientalis L., Salix alba L., and Salix cinerea L. Olympus Biosphere Reserve includes 19 habitat types included in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EE of which four are of priority for protection (species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates, Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes, and ravines, Mediterranean pine forests with endemic black pines and Mediterranean Taxus baccata woods). Among them, the meadows, and rocky formations of the alpine zone, are of particular importance since they host most of the endemic plant taxa of Olympus Biosphere Reserve.

2.3. Data Collection In the framework of the Erasmus+ project CS4ESD and under the limitations of COVID-19, since a visit to Olympus Biosphere Reserve was not possible, a virtual tour to the area was planned to use the information included in Olympus Biosphere Reserve website and in educational material prepared during CS4ESD concerning plants (diversity and importance), plant blindness, environmental databases, and ecosystem services. A questionnaire for the pupils and students followed this virtual tour to Olympus mountain Reserve (Supplementary Materials File S1). The questionnaire was designed to collect the necessary information, aiming to investigate pupils’ and students’ willing to distinguish and learn more about plant and animal species and vegetation communities and evaluate information found in the web, and their ability to use and evaluate available environmental data in online sources. This part of the CS4ESD project consisted of different activities: (1) presentation of the project aims (1 h); (2) presentations and discussion about the plant and plant communities’ diversity of Olympus Mountain Biosphere Reserve, the ecosystem services, and plant blindness (2 h); (3) presentation of the questionnaire (30 min); (4) online research activity for information concerning different parts of the questionnaire (1–2 h); and (4) uploading of the responses to the questionnaire, and evaluation of the activity (45 min). We tested this approach using distinct groups of 125 citizen scientists (volunteers, 45% of them residents of an area near or in a biosphere reserve, 55% female and 45% male): the first group included volunteers, non-experts, and school pupils aged 13–17 (69%); the second group included volunteers, non-experts, and university students aged 18–24 (24%); and the third group included experts, biologists, and persons employed in the surveillance, monitoring, and drafting of protected areas (7%). The first two groups were residents or had visited a biosphere reserve; they were informed and taught about plants, plant communities, environmental databases that are free to use, conservation, and sustainable management. The questionnaire was created through Kobo Toolbox in GitHub and had three main parts, all based on information included in the Olympus Biosphere Reserve website (https://olympusfd.gr/en (accessed on 12 April 2021)). The first part of the questionnaire was completed if pupils and students used the names of plant and animal species as well as vegetation zones and plant communities mentioned in the Olympus Biosphere Reserve website, to find more information in other sites on the web. The second part was based on pupils’ and students’ ability to estimate the ecosystem services of Olympus Biosphere Reserve. This part included 5 units (selection of provisional, regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services that Olympus Biosphere Reserve offers and their importance), following http://staticweb.fsl.orst.edu/ urban-forestry/questionnaire.html (accessed on 12 April 2021). The third part focused on the importance of plants, with 9 questions following https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/4H/ 4H35900.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2021).

2.4. Statistical Analysis Data were examined within the SPSS 26.0 package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), where it was possible based on the number of the respondents and the heterogeneity of the sample groups, using simple statistical analysis (ANOVA), to compare the main features of the responses of the different groups of participants to the questionnaire as Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 5 of 11 Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 6 of 12

explanatoryappreciate variables. the importance The resultsof these of ecosystem each analysis services were (except speciﬁed air quality, in the where text 75% following of the correspondingthem identified ﬁgure. this of importance, similar to the 18–22 group). Much less than 40% of the 13–17‐year‐old volunteers group estimated these ecosystem services as of highly valued 3. Resultsimportance (Figure 5). The two younger groups of volunteers estimated ecosystem ser‐ vicesFigure as being2 presents less significant the results than concerning experts (p < 0.05).The the answers importance of the of three plants different also seemed groups of volunteersto be highly and appreciated experts on by the the questionnairevolunteers aged about18–22 years the biodiversityand experts, since of Mountthey pho Olympus‐ tosynthesize; provide fresh oxygen to breathe; help in reducing the pollution level; pro‐ Biospherevide a Reserve.habitat for Outother of plants, the plant animals taxa, (including 39 in total humans), were registered,and microbes; of play which an im the‐ 10 most frequentportant represented role in influencing 52.5% the of climate; the records. are the primary All three source groups of food; mentioned reduce erosion the and three taxa includedprevent in flooding, Annexes especially II, IV, and trees; V and of the produce Directive a number 92/43/EU, of medicines as high made percentages by plants of the endemic(Figure plants S1). On presented the other hand, in the the Olympus proportions National of the younger Park Management volunteers (13–17) Agency who website (Olympusestimated fd). that the importance of plants is high are rather low (24–48%) and the difference between them and the experts was significant (p < 0.05).

Figure 2.FigureProportions 2. Proportions of the of answers the answers of differentof different age age groups groups concerning concerning plants plants of Olympus of Olympus Biosphere Biosphere Reserve. Reserve.

The mean number of records of plant taxa is much lower, but the number of different plant taxa mentioned, including endemics, is higher for the younger volunteers in comparison with the age group of 18–22 (Figure2). For both groups, there is a significant difference in comparison with the experts’ records (p < 0.05). Local endemic and range-restricted species like Jankaea heldreichii (Boiss.) Boiss., Achillea ambrosiaca (Boiss. & Heldr.) Boiss., Aubrieta thessala Boissieu, Campanula oreadum Boiss. & Heldr., Centaurea incompleta Halácsy, Centaurea litochorea T. Georgiadis & Phitos, Erysimum olympicum Boiss., Festuca olympica J. Vetter, Potentilla deorum Boiss. & Heldr., and Silene oligantha Boiss. & Heldr. were registered by all three groups. For information concerning plants, 22 different websites were used, of which three were the most frequently used (more than 15 times) and were mentioned for 41% of the records. These websites include the site of the Olympus National Park Management Figure 3. ProportionsAgency of the answers (Olympus of different fd, age https://olympusfd.gr/en/ groups concerning vegetation units# accessed of Olympus on Biosphere 12 April Reserve. 2021), the “Greek flora” (https://www.greek flora.gr/ accessed on 12 April 2021), and Flora of Greece Web (http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-greece/intro 12 April 2021). Additionally, the younger volunteers used Google images of plants with no other information and Wikipedia (Figure2). Simple statistical analysis results showed that experts used websites in a significantly different way than the two other groups of volunteers (p < 0.05). The younger group of volunteers seemed to need less time to complete, fully or partly, the questionnaire, in comparison with the group of volunteers aged 18–22 years, who needed more time than the experts (Figure2). Out of the five main vegetation units of Olympus Biosphere Reserve, all vegetation zones were registered together with two more (i.e., tropical forests were registered by about Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 6 of 12

appreciate the importance of these ecosystem services (except air quality, where 75% of them identified this of importance, similar to the 18–22 group). Much less than 40% of the 13–17‐year‐old volunteers group estimated these ecosystem services as of highly valued importance (Figure 5). The two younger groups of volunteers estimated ecosystem ser‐ vices as being less significant than experts (p < 0.05).The importance of plants also seemed to be highly appreciated by the volunteers aged 18–22 years and experts, since they pho‐ tosynthesize; provide fresh oxygen to breathe; help in reducing the pollution level; pro‐ vide a habitat for other plants, animals (including humans), and microbes; play an im‐ portant role in influencing the climate; are the primary source of food; reduce erosion and prevent flooding, especially trees; and produce a number of medicines made by plants (Figure S1). On the other hand, the proportions of the younger volunteers (13–17) who estimated that the importance of plants is high are rather low (24–48%) and the difference between them and the experts was significant (p < 0.05).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 6 of 11

12% of both groups of non-experts), which are not found in the biosphere reserve and its website. Figure3 presents differences in the recognition of different vegetation units of Olympus Biosphere Reserve for the two younger age groups. Figure 2. Proportions of the answers of different age groups concerning plants of Olympus Biosphere Reserve.

Figure 3. ProportionsFigure 3. Proportions of the answers of the answers of different of different age age groups groups concerning vegetation vegetation units of units Olympus of Olympus Biosphere BiosphereReserve. Reserve.

Figure4 presents the proportions of the answers concerning the existence of (a) provisional and regulating ecosystems services and (b) supporting and cultural ecosystem services offered by Olympus Biosphere Reserve. The proportions of the answers concerning the ecosystems services offered by Olympus Biosphere Reserve, estimated as of highly

valued importance, present significant differences among the three groups (Figure5). The most highly valued ecosystem services selected by the volunteers aged 18–22 years and experts included air quality regulation, wildlife habitat, clean water/water quality, contact with nature, biological control, and biodiversity, all directly or indirectly connected with plants and plant and vegetation diversity. The youngest volunteers (13–17) seemed to not appreciate the importance of these ecosystem services (except air quality, where 75% of them identified this of importance, similar to the 18–22 group). Much less than 40% of the 13–17-year-old volunteers group estimated these ecosystem services as of highly valued importance (Figure5). The two younger groups of volunteers estimated ecosystem services as being less significant than experts (p < 0.05).The importance of plants also seemed to be highly appreciated by the volunteers aged 18–22 years and experts, since they photosynthesize; provide fresh oxygen to breathe; help in reducing the pollution level; provide a habitat for other plants, animals (including humans), and microbes; play an important role in influencing the climate; are the primary source of food; reduce erosion and prevent flooding, especially trees; and produce a number of medicines made by plants (Figure S1). On the other hand, the proportions of the younger volunteers (13–17) who Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 estimated that the importance of plants is high are rather low (24–48%) and7 theof 12 difference between them and the experts was significant (p < 0.05).

(a)

Figure 4. Cont.

(b) Figure 4. Proportions of the answers concerning (a) provisional and regulating ecosystems services and (b) supporting and cultural ecosystem services offered by Olympus Biosphere Reserve. Abbreviations: Pr = Provisioning services, Re = Regulating services, Su = Supporting services, Cu = Cultural services, FW = Fresh water, NM = Natural medicines ‐Med. Resources, F = Food, RM = Raw materials, RE = Renewable energy, AQ = Air quality regulation, CR = Climate regulation, HR = Hydrological cycle regulation, BC = Biological control, Po = Pollination, EC = Erosion control, Hab = Habitats for species, MGD = Maintenance of genetic diversity, EE = Environmental education, SK = Scientific knowledge, RMP = Rec‐ reation and mental and physical health, T = Tourism, AL = Enjoy the aesthetics of the landscape, TK = Tradition knowledge, L = Leisure.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 7 of 12

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 7 of 11

(a)

(b)

FigureFigure 4. Proportions 4. Proportions of theof the answers answers concerning concerning ((aa)) provisionalprovisional and and regulating regulating ecosystems ecosystems services services and ( andb) supporting (b) supporting and cultural ecosystem services offered by Olympus Biosphere Reserve. Abbreviations: Pr = Provisioning services, Re = and cultural ecosystem services offered by Olympus Biosphere Reserve. Abbreviations: Pr = Provisioning services, Regulating services, Su = Supporting services, Cu = Cultural services, FW = Fresh water, NM = Natural medicines ‐Med. Re = RegulatingResources, F services, = Food, RM Su == SupportingRaw materials, services, RE = Renewable Cu = Cultural energy, services, AQ = Air FW quality = Fresh regulation, water, NM CR = Climate Natural regulation, medicines -Med. Resources,HR = Hydrological F = Food, RM cycle = Raw regulation, materials, BC = RE Biological = Renewable control, energy, Po = Pollination, AQ = Air EC quality = Erosion regulation, control, CR Hab = = Climate Habitats regulation, for HR =species, Hydrological MGD = Maintenance cycle regulation, of genetic BC diversity, = Biological EE = control,Environmental Po = education, Pollination, SK EC= Scientific = Erosion knowledge, control, RMP Hab = =Rec Habitats‐ reation and mental and physical health, T = Tourism, AL = Enjoy the aesthetics of the landscape, TK = Tradition knowledge, for species, MGD = Maintenance of genetic diversity, EE = Environmental education, SK = Scientiﬁc knowledge, RMP L = Leisure. Sustainability= Recreation 2021 and, 13, 9925 mental and physical health, T = Tourism, AL = Enjoy the aesthetics of the landscape, TK = Tradition8 of 12 knowledge, L = Leisure.

FigureFigure 5. Proportions 5. Proportions of of the the answers answers concerning concerning the the highly highly valued valued importance importance of different of different ecosystems ecosystems services services offered offeredby by Olympus Biosphere Reserve. Olympus Biosphere Reserve.

4.4. Discussion Discussion Successful citizen science and citizen biodiversity monitoring programs and environ‐ Successful citizen science and citizen biodiversity monitoring programs and environmental citizenship include three strategies: collectiveness, situatedness, and connected‐ mentalness [1,57]. citizenship Well‐organized include strategies three strategies: can drive collectiveness,better use of citizen situatedness, science associations, and connected- nessonline [1, 57toolkits,]. Well-organized data repositories, strategies and network can drive portals, better and use can ofimprove citizen citizen science science’s associations, onlinecontribution toolkits, to biodiversity data repositories, monitoring and [57]. network portals, and can improve citizen science’s contributionThe citizen to biodiversity science approach monitoring is often applied [57]. in the framework of biodiversity mon‐ itoringThe projects citizen [4]. science The quality approach of the is data often collected applied by in non the‐experts framework and the of shortcomings biodiversity moni- toringof these projects data in [ comparison4]. The quality to data of collected the data by collected experts is by a non-expertsdemand and a and critical the step shortcomings for ofevaluating these data and in comparisonutilizing such to data data [4,5,58–61]. collected The by experts answers is to a the demand questionnaire, and a critical which step for evaluatingwas built in and the utilizing framework such of this data project, [4,5,58 are–61 indicative]. The answers of young to thecitizens’ questionnaire, ability to eval which‐ was uate environmental issues, such as plant characteristics and importance, plant species di‐ versity, different plant communities, conservation, and ecosystem services. Younger citizens found information for more plant taxa, especially endemics, than others, but the mean number of records was lower, they visited a higher percentage of websites than the citizens of the 18–22‐year‐old group, and higher proportions of their records were from Google images and from the site of Olympus National Park Manage‐ ment Agency (https://olympusfd.gr/en/ (accessed on 12 April 2021)). The age of the citi‐ zens is a factor that may affect the quality of citizen science data and could be a more accurate predictor of citizen scientists’ abilities [4,62]. Citizens of the 18–22‐year‐old group needed more time for their answers than younger ones since they mainly found infor‐ mation from two sites concerning the vascular plant diversity of Greece (Flora of Greece Web and Greek Flora). Concerning vegetation units, both groups of young citizens fol‐ lowed information found on the site of Olympus National Park Management Agency, but there were two vegetation units included in the answers that showed uncertainty, indif‐ ference, or a possible lack of proper attention. For non‐experts, more time is required if they really want to delve into a subject and at least some preliminary training before start‐ ing to carry out the task [4,5]. Environmental monitoring and assessment needs citizen science and participatory processes to be relevant for Agenda 2030 and SDGs [7]. Biodiversity monitoring can be

Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 8 of 11

built in the framework of this project, are indicative of young citizens’ ability to evaluate environmental issues, such as plant characteristics and importance, plant species diversity, different plant communities, conservation, and ecosystem services. Younger citizens found information for more plant taxa, especially endemics, than others, but the mean number of records was lower, they visited a higher percentage of websites than the citizens of the 18–22-year-old group, and higher proportions of their records were from Google images and from the site of Olympus National Park Management Agency (https://olympusfd.gr/en/ (accessed on 12 April 2021)). The age of the citizens is a factor that may affect the quality of citizen science data and could be a more accurate predictor of citizen scientists’ abilities [4,62]. Citizens of the 18–22-year-old group needed more time for their answers than younger ones since they mainly found information from two sites concerning the vascular plant diversity of Greece (Flora of Greece Web and Greek Flora). Concerning vegetation units, both groups of young citizens followed information found on the site of Olympus National Park Management Agency, but there were two vegetation units included in the answers that showed uncertainty, indifference, or a possible lack of proper attention. For non-experts, more time is required if they really want to delve into a subject and at least some preliminary training before starting to carry out the task [4,5]. Environmental monitoring and assessment needs citizen science and participatory processes to be relevant for Agenda 2030 and SDGs [7]. Biodiversity monitoring can be supported by citizen science for taxonomic, geographic, and essential biodiversity variables coverage, by building on the interests and needs of participants and providing volunteers and citizen scientists with education, scientiﬁc information, tools, and services [57,63]. Education is one of the most important tools and the UN 2030 Agenda acknowl- edges Quality Education (SDG#4) as a means for achieving the remaining SDGs, with sustainability as a goal for Education [64]. Education allows both experts and young volunteers to understand the importance of sustainable development [39]. Early educational experiences providing equal exposure to plants, microbes, and animals is also crucial for counteracting plant blindness [27], improving children’s perceptions of biodiversity [65,66] and young citizens’ awareness, especially in protected areas, such as biosphere reserves. Young people can be educated to have the capacity to detect, recall, and evaluate plants [15] and move plants into the foreground of their hearts and minds [33]. Plant species recognition and outdoor education are the easiest way to come closer to nature, ecosystems, and biodiversity [20]. Plants are a particularly important component of biodiversity, playing a fundamental role in ecosystem functioning and have a positive inﬂuence on the provision of ecosystem services [67]. Many of the young citizens involved in the current study did not estimate most of the ecosystem services provided by plants and plant communities. There is a need for further affect service provision [44,67–72]. On the other hand, when trying to improve young citizens’ knowledge on ecosystem services provided by plants and plant communities, educators should not focus only on plants that are useful to us and lure young citizens into a utility trap [32], which can place the wildness of Earth inside the garden of human concerns [35,73].

5. Conclusions Even though it had a narrow scope, this case study revealed young citizens’ ability to use web-based information on plants and plant communities of Olympus Biosphere Reserve, which could be much improved through educational experiences as well as their perception of plants and plant communities’ importance and of the ecosystem services they provide. It is important to take such results seriously and give young citizens the chance to know the most common plant species in their own place of residence, to know how to ﬁnd more information about plants, and to understand why plant species are important, through speciﬁc educational guidelines [20]. It cannot be denied that mobiles and smart devices, in general, are much more attractive to young citizens than plants and Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 9 of 11

plant communities, but their use can help to promote conservational thinking and to create conceptual knowledge since they also make the learning unit more impressive by rapidly changing images and videos and enabling the education of young citizens with direct feedback [21].

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10 .3390/su13179925/s1, Supplementary File S1: Questionnaire concerning biodiversity of Olympus Biosphere Reserve. Figure S1: Proportions of the answers concerning the highly valued importance of plants. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.P., N.I. and E.P.; methodology, M.P. and N.I.; validation, M.P., N.I. and E.P.; formal analysis, M.P.; investigation, M.P. and N.I.; resources, M.P. and N.I.; data curation, M.P. and N.I.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.; writing—review and editing, M.P., N.I. and E.P.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, M.P.; project administration, M.P.; E.P.; funding acquisition, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Erasmus+ project Citizen Science for Education in Sustainable Development, CS4ESD (https://cs4esd.eu/ (accessed on 12 April 2021)). Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all anonymous volunteers involved in this study. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References 1. Jørgensen, F.A.; Jørgensen, D. Citizen science for environmental citizenship. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 35, 1344–1347. [CrossRef] 2. Newson, S.E.; Evans, H.E.; Gillings, S.; Jarrett, D.; Raynor, R.; Wilson, M.W. Large-scale citizen science improves assessment of risk posed by wind farms to bats in southern Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 215, 61–71. [CrossRef] 3. Heinisch, B. The Role of Translation in Citizen Science to Foster Social Innovation. Front. Sociol. 2021, 6, 33. [CrossRef] 4. Kallimanis, A.S.; Panitsa, M.; Dimopoulos, P. Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8873. [CrossRef][PubMed] 5. Pocock, M.J.O.; Tweddle, J.C.; Savage, J.; Robinson, L.D.; Roy, H.E. The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172579. [CrossRef] 6. Turrini, T.; Dörler, D.; Richter, A.; Heigl, F.; Bonn, A. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science—Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 225, 176–186. [CrossRef] 7. Ferrari, C.A.; Jönsson, M.; Gebrehiwot, S.G.; Chiwona-Karltun, L.; Mark-Herbert, C.; Manuschevich, D.; Powell, N.; Do, T.; Bishop, K.; Hilding-Rydevik, T. Citizen science as democratic innovation that renews environmental monitoring and assessment for the sustainable development goals in rural areas. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2762. [CrossRef] 8. Pimm, S.L.; Alibhai, S.; Bergl, R.; Dehgan, A.; Giri, C.; Jewell, Z.; Joppa, L.; Kays, R.; Loarie, S. Emerging Technologies to Conserve Biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 685–696. [CrossRef][PubMed] 9. Hartman, T.; Lydon, S.J.; Rasmussen, A. Hunting for answers: Linking lectures with the real world using a mobile treasure hunt app. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 233–247. [CrossRef] 10. Wagenknecht, K.; Woods, T.; Sanz, F.G.; Gold, M.; Bowser, A.; Rüfenacht, S.; Ceccaroni, L.; Piera, J. EU-Citizen.Science: A Platform for Mainstreaming Citizen Science and Open Science in Europe. Data Intell. 2021, 3, 136–149. [CrossRef] 11. Sprinks, J.; Woods, S.M.; Parkinson, S.; Wehn, U.; Joyce, H.; Ceccaroni, L.; Gharesifard, M. Coordinator perceptions when assessing the impact of citizen science towards sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2377. [CrossRef] 12. Ajates, R.; Hager, G.; Georgiadis, P.; Coulson, S.; Woods, M.; Hemment, D. Local action with global impact: The case of the grow observatory and the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2020, 12, 518. [CrossRef] 13. Dörler, D.; Fritz, S.; Voigt-Heucke, S.; Heigl, F. Citizen Science and the Role in Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5676. [CrossRef] 14. Sayer, J.; Sheil, D.; Galloway, G.; Riggs, R.A.; Mewett, G.; MacDicken, K.G.; Arts, B.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Langston, J.; Edwards, D.P. SDG 15: Life on land-The central role of forests in sustainable development. In Sustainable Development Goals: Their Impacts on Forests and People; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019. 15. Balding, M.; Williams, K.J.H. Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1192–1199. [CrossRef][PubMed] 16. Pany, P.; Heidinger, C. Uncovering patterns of interest in useful plants. Frequency analysis of individual students’ interest types as a tool for planning botany teaching units. Multidiscip. J. Educ. Soc. Technol. Sci. 2014, 2, 15–39. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 10 of 11

17. Batke, S.; Dallimore, T.; Bostock, J.; Batke, S.P. Understanding Plant Blindness-Students’ Inherent Interest of Plants in Higher Education. J. Plant Sci. 2020, 8, 98. 18. Bakar, F.; Avan, Ç.; ¸Seker, F.; Aydinli, B. Plant and animal awareness in nature education perspectives: Where is blindness? Int. Electron. J. Environ. Educ. 2020, 10, 122–135. 19. Colon, J.; Tiernan, N.; Oliphant, S.; Shirajee, A.; Flickinger, J.; Hong, L.I.U.; Francisco-Ortega, J.; McCartney, M. Bringing botany into focus: Addressing plant blindness in undergraduates through an immersive botanical experience. Bioscience 2020, 70, 887–900. [CrossRef] 20. Kaasinen, A. Plant species recognition skills in ﬁnnish students and teachers. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 85. [CrossRef] 21. Kissi, L.; Dreesmann, D. Plant visibility through mobile learning? Implementation and evaluation of an interactive Flower Hunt in a botanic garden. J. Biol. Educ. 2018, 52, 344–363. [CrossRef] 22. Pany, P.; Lörnitzo, A.; Auleitner, L.; Heidinger, C.; Lampert, P.; Kiehn, M. Using students’ interest in useful plants to encourage plant vision in the classroom. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 261–270. [CrossRef] 23. Balas, B.; Momsen, J.L. Attention “blinks” differently for plants and animals. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13, 437–443. [CrossRef] 24. Amprazis, A.; Papadopoulou, P. Plant blindness: A faddish research interest or a substantive impediment to achieve sustainable development goals? Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 1065–1087. [CrossRef] 25. Amprazis, A.; Papadopoulou, P.; Malandrakis, G. Plant blindness and children’s recognition of plants as living things: A research in the primary schools context. J. Biol. Educ. 2021, 55, 139–154. [CrossRef] 26. Ahi, B.; Atasoy, V.; Balci, S. An analysis of plant blindness in Turkish textbooks used at the basic education level. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2018, 17, 277–287. [CrossRef] 27. Jose, S.B.; Wu, C.; Kamoun, S. Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 169–172. [CrossRef] 28. Thomas, H.; Ougham, H.; Sanders, D. Plant blindness and sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021.[CrossRef] 29. Thorogood, C. Astonishing Plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 833–836. [CrossRef] 30. Wandersee, J.H.; Schussler, E.E. Preventing Plant Blindness. Am. Biol. Teach. 1999, 61, 82–86. [CrossRef] 31. Wandersee, J.; Schussler, E. Toward a Theory of Plant Blindness. Plant Sci. Bull. 2001, 47, 2–7. 32. Knapp, S. Are humans really blind to plants? Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 164–168. [CrossRef] 33. MacKenzie, C.M.; Kuebbing, S.; Barak, R.S.; Bletz, M.; Dudney, J.; McGill, B.M.; Nocco, M.A.; Young, T.; Tonietto, R.K. We do not want to “cure plant blindness” we want to grow plant love. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 139–141. [CrossRef] 34. Kissi, L.; Dreesmann, D. Flowers with powers–conception and evaluation of an ‘educational seed mix’. J. Biol. Educ. 2020, 17, 1–16. [CrossRef] 35. Sanders, D.L. Standing in the shadows of plants. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 130–138. [CrossRef] 36. Moscoe, L.J.; Hanes, M.M. Taste of Life: Science outreach made delicious. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 183–187. [CrossRef] 37. Sipos, Y.; Battisti, B.; Grimm, K. Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2008, 9, 68–86. [CrossRef] 38. Kioupi, V.; Voulvoulis, N. Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6104. [CrossRef] 39. Kioupi, V.; Voulvoulis, N. Sustainable development goals (SDGs): Assessing the contribution of higher education programmes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6701. [CrossRef] 40. Lozano, R.; Merrill, M.Y.; Sammalisto, K.; Ceulemans, K.; Lozano, F.J. Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1889. [CrossRef] 41. Naeem, S.; Bunker, D.E.; Hector, A.; Loreau, M.; Perrings, C. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective; Oxford University: Oxford, UK, 2009. 42. Naeem, S.; Duffy, J.E.; Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 2012, 336, 1401–1406. [CrossRef] 43. Quijas, S.; Jackson, L.E.; Maass, M.; Schmid, B.; Raffaelli, D.; Balvanera, P. Plant diversity and generation of ecosystem services at the landscape scale: Expert knowledge assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 929–940. [CrossRef] 44. Panitsa, M.; Kokkoris, I.P.; Kougioumoutzis, K.; Kontopanou, A.; Bazos, I.; Strid, A.; Dimopoulos, P. Linking taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional plant diversity with ecosystem services of cliffs and screes in greece. Plants 2021, 10, 992. [CrossRef] 45. Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–26. [CrossRef][PubMed] 46. Reyers, B.; Polasky, S.; Tallis, H.; Mooney, H.A.; Larigauderie, A. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 2012, 62, 503–507. [CrossRef] 47. Schröter, M.; Kraemer, R.; Mantel, M.; Kabisch, N.; Hecker, S.; Richter, A.; Neumeier, V.; Bonn, A. Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 80–94. [CrossRef] 48. Sánchez-Clavijo, L.M.; Martínez-Callejas, S.J.; Acevedo-Charry, O.; Diaz-Pulido, A.; Gómez-Valencia, B.; Ocampo-Peñuela, N.; Ocampo, D.; Olaya-Rodríguez, M.H.; Rey-Velasco, J.C.; Soto-Vargas, C.; et al. Differential reporting of biodiversity in two citizen science platforms during COVID-19 lockdown in Colombia. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 256, 109077. [CrossRef] 49. Vijay, V.; Field, C.R.; Gollnow, F.; Jones, K.K. Using internet search data to understand information seeking behavior for health and conservation topics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 257, 109078. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 9925 11 of 11

50. Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Athearn, N.; Blackford, T.; Brigham, C.; Cohen, L.; Cole-Will, R.; Edgar, T.; Ellwood, E.R.; Fisichelli, N.; Pritz, C.F.; et al. COVID-19 pandemic impacts on conservation research, management, and public engagement in US national parks. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 257, 109038. [CrossRef] 51. Buckley, R. Conservation implications of COVID19: Effects via tourism and extractive industries. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 247, 108640. [CrossRef][PubMed] 52. Pennisi, E. Pandemic robs field scientists of ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ moments. Science 2020.[CrossRef] 53. McNeely, J.A. Nature and COVID-19: The pandemic, the environment, and the way ahead. Ambio 2021, 50, 767–781. [CrossRef] 54. Souza, C.N.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Correia, R.A.; Normande, I.C.; Costa, H.C.M.; Guedes-Santos, J.; Malhado, A.C.M.; Carvalho, A.R.; Ladle, R.J. No visit, no interest: How COVID-19 has affected public interest in world’s national parks. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 256, 109015. [CrossRef] 55. Strid, A. Wild Flowers of Mount Olympus. Taxon 1981, 30, 722. [CrossRef] 56. Tsitsoni, T.; Fotiadis, G. Surveillance and Evaluation of the Conservation Status of Plant Species of European Community Interest in the Area of Jurisdiction of Olympus National Park Management Agency. Phase D’. ONPMA, RDP Macedonia-Thrace 2007–2013. 2015. 57. Chandler, M.; See, L.; Copas, K.; Bonde, A.M.Z.; López, B.C.; Danielsen, F.; Legind, J.K.; Masinde, S.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Newman, G.; et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 280–294. [CrossRef] 58. Crall, A.W.; Newman, G.J.; Stohlgren, T.J.; Holfelder, K.A.; Graham, J.; Waller, D.M. Assessing citizen science data quality: An invasive species case study. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 433–442. [CrossRef] 59. Danielsen, F.; Jensen, P.M.; Burgess, N.D.; Altamirano, R.; Alviola, P.A.; Andrianandrasana, H.; Brashares, J.S.; Burton, A.C.; Coronado, I.; Corpuz, N.; et al. A Multicountry Assessment of Tropical Resource Monitoring by Local Communities. Bioscience 2014, 64, 236–251. [CrossRef] 60. Buesching, C.D.; Slade, E.M.; Newman, C.; Riutta, T.; Riordan, P.; Macdonald, D.W. Many hands make light work—But do they? A critical evaluation of Citizen Science. In Wildlife Conservation on Farmland; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; Volume 2. 61. Lukyanenko, R.; Parsons, J.; Wiersma, Y.F. Emerging problems of data quality in citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 447–449. [CrossRef] 62. Delaney, D.G.; Sperling, C.D.; Adams, C.S.; Leung, B. Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 2008, 10, 117–128. [CrossRef] 63. Shirk, J.L.; Ballard, H.L.; Wilderman, C.C.; Phillips, T.; Wiggins, A.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Minarchek, M.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Krasny, M.E.; et al. Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 29. [CrossRef] 64. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education: All Means All; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2020. 65. Morón-Monge, H.; Hamed, S.; Morón Monge, M.D. How Do Children Perceive the Biodiversity of Their nearby Environment: An Analysis of Drawings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3036. [CrossRef] 66. Echeverria, A.; Ariz, I.; Moreno, J.; Peralta, J.; Gonzalez, E.M. Learning Plant Biodiversity in Nature: The Use of the Citizen–Science Platform iNaturalist as a Collaborative Tool in Secondary Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 735. [CrossRef] 67. Quijas, S.; Schmid, B.; Balvanera, P. Plant diversity enhances provision of ecosystem services: A new synthesis. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2010, 11, 582–593. [CrossRef] 68. Cresswell, C.J.; Cunningham, H.M.; Wilcox, A.; Randall, N.P. What specific plant traits support ecosystem services such as pollination, biocontrol and water quality protection in temperate climates? A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 2018, 7, 2. [CrossRef] 69. Cheminal, A.; Kokkoris, I.P.; Strid, A.; Dimopoulos, P. Medicinal and aromatic lamiaceae plants in greece: Linking diversity and distribution patterns with ecosystem services. Forests 2020, 11, 661. [CrossRef] 70. Kokkoris, I.P.; Drakou, E.G.; Maes, J.; Dimopoulos, P. Ecosystem services supply in protected mountains of Greece: Setting the baseline for conservation management. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2018, 14, 45–59. [CrossRef] 71. Kotsiras, K.; Kokkoris, I.P.; Strid, A.; Dimopoulos, P. Integrating plant diversity data into mapping and assessment of ecosystem and their services (MAES) implementation in Greece: Woodland and forest pilot. Forests 2020, 11, 956. [CrossRef] 72. Hanisch, M.; Schweiger, O.; Cord, A.F.; Volk, M.; Knapp, S. Plant functional traits shape multiple ecosystem services, their trade-offs and synergies in grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 1535–1550. [CrossRef] 73. Sanders, D. Trapped in time: Lingering with “Plantness”. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 64–66. [CrossRef]