others. Earlier studies have shown, for A Master Gardener Survey: Promoting example, that information from Inter- Pollinator-friendly Plants Through Education net sources was less commonly ac- quired by participants over age 61 and Outreach years than by younger survey partici- pants. Notably, when these survey 1 2 1 participants were asked what the most Heather Kalaman , Gary W. Knox , Sandra B. Wilson , important attribute was in accessing and Wendy Wilber3 and retaining gardening information, convenience and interaction ranked the highest (Meyer and Foord, 2008). ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. Florida gardening, insect identification, native bees, Creating opportunities for the plant identification, pollinator conservation public to conveniently access educa- SUMMARY. As land-use patterns change over time, some pollinating insects continue tional materials on pollinators and to decline both in abundance and diversity. This is due, in part, to reductions in pollinator-friendly plants with an in- floral resources that provide sufficient nectar and pollen. Our overall goal is to help teractive tone can be accomplished in increase the use of plants that enhance pollinator health by providing research-based a variety of ways. Through encourage- information that is easily accessible to the public. To assess the most successful mode ment and employment of enthusiast of sharing this information, a survey was distributed to more than 4000 Master community members and apprentice Gardener (MG) volunteers of Florida. The objectives of our survey were to gauge naturalists, enormous strides can be both knowledge and interest in common pollinators, common pollinator-friendly made toward the sustainability of our floral resources, and a favored means of accessing material about additional pollinator- pollinators. For example, volunteer- friendly plants for landscape use. With a response rate of just over 18%, results showed that there is a clear interest among Florida MGs in learning more about based citizen science groups have been pollinators and pollinator-friendly plants with face-to-face classes followed by invaluable contributors to an array of a website as the preferred modes of accessing educational materials on this topic. data scientists rely on every day due to Respondents on average were extremely interested in learning more about polli- the widespread use of mobile comput- nator plants [mean of 4.41 out of 5.0 (SD = 0.89)], with greatest interest in but- ing, large-scale and free computational terflies/moths (Lepidoptera), followed by bees (Hymenoptera), birds (Aves), bats power, and the personal satisfaction (Chiroptera), and beetles (Coleoptera). Overall, MG participants felt more confi- gained from participating in ongoing < dent (P 0.0001) in their knowledge of pollinator-friendly plants (mean 3.24 out research (Bonney et al., 2009; Silvertown, of 5.0) than pollinator insects (mean 3.01 out of 5.0). When tested, 88.5% were able 2009). Remarkably, data collected Rudbeckia hirta to correctly identify black-eyed susan ( ), with 70.1% correctly through an online database for bird identifying spotted beebalm (Monarda punctata). Variations were observed in tested knowledge of pollinating insects, with 90.2% correctly identifying a zebra observations (eBird; Cornell Univer- longwing (Heliconius charithonia) and only 32.6% correctly identifying a striped- sity, Ithaca, NY) has been used in sweat bee (Agapostemon splendens). These results revealed that MGs perceived at least 90 peer-reviewed articles and themselves to be fairly knowledgeable about both pollinator plants and pollinating book chapters on a wide range of insects, yet their tested knowledge ranged widely depending on the actual plant and ornithological topics (Bonney et al., pollinator type. This suggests an emphasis be given for future MG training focused 2014). Surely, the most effective tool on diverse plant and pollinator species, preferably in a face-to-face environment. for public acknowledgment and com- Results also show that additional resources regarding pollinator-friendly plants, as prehension of scientific information is well as identification material on pollinating insects, are both desired and valued by through cooperation. Therefore, the our Florida MG community. objectives of our survey were to gauge overall MG desire to learn more about he significant contributions (Foley et al., 2005). One possible way pollinators and pollinator-friendly plants, made by pollinating insects to to help mitigate these threats is to to assess both perceived and tested Tthe prosperity and health of increase the use of plants that enhance knowledge of common pollinators our many ecosystems are well known pollinator health by generating re- and their associated floral preferences, among both the public and the scientific search-based information that is easily and to determine the preferred means community (Novacek, 2008; Smith, attainable by the public. In a recent of accessing educational material about 2016). Not only are the pollination survey, 46% of consumers purchased landscape use plants that will aid services provided by these insects pollinator-friendly plants for their in supporting our pollinating insect fundamental for the proliferation of home landscape, noting their enthu- communities. some of our most prized cultivated siasm for both aiding in pollinator crops, but nearly 90% of all wild plants health and their attractive landscape Materials and methods depend on insects to survive and qualities (Campbell et al., 2017). In- SURVEY. A survey questionnaire flourish (Ashman et al., 2004; Hoshiba formation regarding gardening and was constructed to anonymously as- and Sasaki, 2008). Nonetheless, as landscape use plants is available in sess the interest and knowledge Flor- our land-use patterns have been al- many formats from phone-based ap- ida MGs have related to pollinator tered over time, some pollinating in- plications, websites, webinars, and plants. The resulting survey (ap- sects have continued to decline both face-to-face classes (Varlamoff et al., proved by the University of Florida in abundance and diversity due, in 2002). Depending on the demo- Institutional Review Board, ID num- part, to reductions in floral resources graphics of the community, various ber 201802622) comprised 16 ques- that provide sufficient nectar and pollen sources are relied on more heavily than tions consisting of free response,
• https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 1of5 image-based identification, Likert scale, Table 1. Sixteen questions included within the online survey instrument emailed and multiple choice. Questions focused to 4000 Master Gardeners in Florida to gauge both knowledge and interest in on 1) gauging overall desire to learn common pollinators, common pollinator-friendly floral resources, and a favored more about pollinators and their pre- means of accessing material about additional pollinator-friendly plants for ferred floral resources, 2) assessing both landscape use. perceived and tested knowledge of 1. How confident are you in your ability to identify different pollinators? (0–5 scale) common pollinators and common 2. Do you feel more interested in specific types of pollinators? (choose all that apply) pollinator-friendly plants of Florida, 3. How familiar are you with pollinator-friendly plants? (0–5 scale) and 3) ascertaining the preferred means 4. How interested are you in learning more about pollinator-friendly plants? (0–5 scale) of accessing educational material about 5. Do you currently grow any pollinator-friendly plants? (yes or no) floral resources that will aid in support- 6. How many different species of pollinator-friendly plants do you grow? ing pollinating insect communities (selected category) (Table 1). 7. Do you currently use any nature-oriented phone applications or websites? (yes or no) SURVEY DISTRIBUTION. The sur- 8. What, if any, nature-oriented phone applications or websites do you typically use? vey was designed and implemented (choose all that apply) using an online software platform 9. If you answered ‘‘Other,’’ what phone application or website do you commonly use? (Qualtrics XM; Qualtrics, Provo, UT). (open answer) This delivery format was employed 10. What is it about this phone application or website that you enjoy the most? as online surveys have proven more (choose all that apply) effective than standard mail surveys 11. If you answered ‘‘Other,’’ why do you enjoy this phone application or website? due to their affordability, convenience, (open answer) speed and timeliness (Evans and 12. What would be the most successful mode of learning more about pollinators and Mathur, 2005). The survey was dis- pollinator-friendly plants? (open answer) tributed by the Florida Statewide MG 13. Name this pollinator-friendly plant (image). (multiple choice) Volunteer Program Coordinator, us- 14. Name this pollinator-friendly plant (image). (multiple choice) ing an e-mail list-serve address repre- 15. Name this pollinator (image). (multiple choice) senting all 4000 registered MGs. MG 16. Name this pollinator (image). (multiple choice) volunteers were our target audience for this study because they have his- torically and consistently displayed great expand their own knowledge of hor- Results and discussion interest in growing and learning about ticulture but also to share that landscape-use plants. As a volunteer- knowledge with their communities. SURVEY RESPONSE. The online driven organization working closely The survey link was accompanied survey was initiated by 970 partici- with the University of Florida’s In- with a letter introducing members pants, with 731 successfully complet- stitute of Food and Agricultural Sci- of the project, a mission statement, ing all 16 questions (18.3% response ences Extension Service (UF/IFAS), instructions for further survey in- rate, 75.4% completion rate). they work diligently not only to volvement, and a message of grati- OVERALL DESIRE TO LEARN MORE tude for participation because ABOUT POLLINATORS AND POLLINATORS studies have shown personalization PLANTS. The aim of the first portion of Received for publication 17 July 2019. Accepted for publication 17 Dec. 2019. and salient acknowledgment con- the survey was to assess overall in- Published online 24 January 2020. tribute to better response rates terest in insect and non-insect polli- (Schaefer and Dillman, 1998). In- nators, as well as the desire among 1Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Exten- sion Service (IFAS), Department of Environmental dividual responses were recorded our MG participants to learn more Horticulture, University of Florida, P.O. Box and remained anonymous through- about pollinator-friendly resources. 110675, Gainesville, FL 32611 out the course of survey data collec- When asked to select each of the 2IFAS, Department of Environmental Horticulture, tion because assured anonymity tends pollinators they felt most interested North Florida Research and Education Center, Uni- versity of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL to lend itself to more sincere or in [butterflies and moths (Lepidop- 32351 honest answers (Stanton, 1998). To tera), bees (Hymenoptera), birds 3IFAS, Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecol- avoid some potential weaknesses of (Aves), bats (Chiroptera), and beetles ogy, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110675, Gaines- online surveys, such as a respondent’s (Coleoptera)], ‘‘butterflies and moths’’ ville, FL 32611 lack of online experience or expertise received the greatest number of re- We gratefully acknowledge the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agricul- and technological variations (Evans and sponses (821), followed by ‘‘bees’’ ture, Crop Protection and Pest Management Exten- Mathur, 2005), the survey remained (729), ‘‘birds’’ (628), ‘‘bats’’ (326), sion Implementation Project for funding this project and James Cooley for statistical consultation of survey open for 6 weeks, and all configuration and ‘‘beetles’’’ (209) (Fig. 1). Partici- results. issues and inquiries were answered pants were then asked how interested This research was presented as a poster and paper accordingly. they were in learning more about pol- proceeding at the Florida State Horticultural Society The mean and standard devia- linator-friendly plants for landscape use Annual Meeting, 9–11 June 2019, Orlando, FL. tion of survey responses were calcu- on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 5 H.K. is the corresponding author. E-mail: hkalaman@ ufl.edu. lated using Qualtrics XM. When (0 = not at all interested, 5 = extremely appropriate, means were compared interested). With 797 respondents, re- This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/ using a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sults showed a mean of 4.41 out of licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). test implemented in SAS (version 9.2; a possible of 5 (SD =0.89)(Table2). https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 SAS Institute, Cary, NC) at P £ 0.05. Results from this portion of our survey
2of5 • https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 indicated that there is a strong desire pollinator-friendly floral resources and pollinating insect communities, educa- by MG volunteers to learn more to test that perceived knowledge. tional materials to aid in the identifica- about pollinator-friendly plants, and When asked how familiar they were tion and conservation of our native that of the five pollinator choices with pollinator-friendly plants on bees here in the United States is crucial. listed, MGs are most interested in a Likert scale from 0 to 5 (0 = not at Growing interest and concern for in- butterflies/moths and bees. Of inter- all knowledgeable, 5 = extremely sect pollinators, particularly bees, is est to note is that 95.4% reported that knowledgeable), the mean response evident through recent studies that they already grow pollinator-friendly was 3.29, showing a slightly above have shown that 99% of surveyed re- plants. When asked how many species moderate familiarity. When asked how spondents believed bees were critically they grow, 78.1% reported growing confident they were in their ability to important in their ecosystem services fewer than 20 species and 21.9% identify different pollinators, the mean (Wilson et al., 2017). However, the reported growing more than 20 spe- was 3.01 (731 respondents), slightly ability to distinguish bee types is less cies (Fig. 2). Studies have shown that lower than reported for pollinator- common. For example, Wilson et al. an increase in the diversity of floral friendly plants (Table 2). (2017), found that these same survey species planted plays a significant role When tested on plants and insect respondents were largely only able to in both pollinator abundance and di- pollinators, on average MGs per- successfully identify honeybees (Apis versification, due to prolonged sea- formed higher in their tested knowl- mellifera) and bumble bees (Bombus sonal resource value and availability edge of plants compared with insects sp.) compared with other bee species. of a wide range of pollen and nectar (Table 2). For example, when shown This is not surprising with recent bee sources (Potts et al., 2003; Williams a photo of a commonly advertised campaigns associated with the exten- et al., 2015). pollinator plant, spotted beebalm sive losses in honeybee communities P ERCEIVED AND TESTED (Monarda punctata), 587 of 838 due to various pests, pathogens, cli- KNOWLEDGE. The second objective respondents (70.1%) were able to matic changes, and other stressors of the survey was to gauge MGs correctly identify an image of this (Pettis and Delaplane, 2010). With more perceived knowledge of both com- floral resource. Similarly, when shown than 4000 currently described species mon insect pollinators and popular a photo of a black-eyed susan (Rud- of native bees in North America, Flor- beckia hirta), 744 of 841 respondents ida is home to more than 300 species, (88.5%) were able to correctly iden- 29 of which are entirely endemic to the tify this plant. MGs tested knowledge state (Michner, 2000; Pascarella et al., of two common pollinating insects 1999). Resources that aid in the iden- varied depending on the image pro- tification of native bee communities vided. When shown an image of will help in educating consumers about the Florida state butterfly, the zebra the diversity of existing bee species. longwing (Heliconius charithonia), PREFERRED MODE OF LEARNING. 731 of 833 respondents (90.2%) were The last portion of our survey was able to correctly identify it (Table 2). designed to determine the most suc- Yet when shown an image of a Florida cessful means of both developing and native striped-sweat bee (Agaposte- distributing educational materials mon splendens), 270 of 829 respon- about pollinating insects and pollinator- Fig. 1. Individual Florida Master Gardener responses when asked to dents (32.6%) were able to correctly friendly plants for landscape use. select each of the pollinators types identify this bee pollinator. When MGs were asked to identify they felt most interested in from five In addition to providing infor- their preferred mode of learning choices: butterflies/moths, bees, mation on which plants best serve about pollinators and pollinator- birds, beetles, and bats. as beneficial floral resources to our friendly plants, a face-to-face class was preferred (36.1%), followed by an online website (21.6%) (Fig. 3). Table 2. Master Gardener participants survey results showing overall interest in Preference for a face-to-face class may learning more about pollinator-friendly plants and their perceived and tested be influenced by the fact that the knowledge of identifying pollinators and pollinator-friendly plants.z median age range of a MG volunteer is 65 and the majority are retired, Perceived Tested Interest to addressing the possibility of techno- knowledge knowledge learn more logical apprehension as well as the [mean ± SD [mean (% correct [mean ± SD (0–5 scale)]y response)]x (0–5 scale)]w probable unrestricted free time to dedicate to in-person classes (Dorn Pollinator-friendly plants 4.41 ± 0.89 et al., 2018; Relf and McDaniel, Black-eyed susan 88.5 1994; Vines et al., 2016). It should Spotted beebalm 70.1 be noted that information technol- Pollinators 3.01 ± 1.21 ogy–based training programs still serve Zebra longwing 90.2 as effective educational resources as Striped-sweat bee 32.6 they have shown to have fewer missed zMeans were significantly different based on Wilcoxon signed-rank t test at P £ 0.05. participants, can be more cost effective, y0 = not knowledgeable, 5 = extremely knowledgeable. xMultiple-choice format. and produce similar levels of mastery w0 = not at all interested, 5 = extremely interested. of material as face-to-face training
• https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 3of5 programs (Lim et al., 2007) In fact, Information Sources of UF/IFAS when asked whether they currently use Extension) resources, followed by Literature cited any nature-oriented phone applications the phone application PictureThis Ashman, T.L., T. Knight, J. Steets, P. or websites, 532 of 859 respondents [Glority, Hangzhou, China (9.8%)], Amarasekare, M. Burd, D. Campbell, M. (61.9%) answered ‘‘yes’’ (data not Florida Native Plant Society [Winter Dudash, M. Johnston, S. Mazer, R. presented). Park, FL (5.7%)], and the phone Mitchell, M. Morgan, and W. Wilson. 2004. Pollen limitation of plant repro- When asked to select the nature- application PlantSnap [PlantSnap, duction: Ecological and evolutionary causes oriented phone applications or web- Telluride, CO (4.7%)] (data not pre- and consequences. Ecology 85:2409– sites they most frequently use from sented). Participants stated they use 2421. a list of five, respondents most fre- these other resources because they are quently chose Facebook Groups research based, reviewed by the sci- Bonney, R., C. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. [Facebook, Menlo Park, CA (21%)], entific community, and state specific. Kelling, T. Phillips, K. Rosenberg, and J. Shirk. 2009. Citizen science: A develop- followed by National Audubon Soci- In summary, results from our ing tool for expanding science knowledge ety [Manhattan, NY (18.9%)], and survey revealed a strong MG interest and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:977– the phone application PlantNet in learning more about pollinator- 984. [Paris, France (10.5%)] (data not pre- friendly plants, as well as specific types sented). The most common reasons of pollinators. Although a significant Bonney,R.,J.Shirk,T.Phillips,A.Wiggins, for use of these websites or phone number of Florida MG volunteers H. Ballard, A. Miller-Rushing, and J. Parrish. 2014. Next steps for citizen sci- applications were that they were easy acknowledged that they already grow ence. Science 342:1436–1437. to use, free, and interactive. We addi- several pollinator-friendly plants in tionally allowed for an open answer their landscape, providing additional Campbell, B., H. Khachatryan, and A. option for this question (‘‘other’’), research-based materials on pollina- Rihn. 2017. Pollinator-friendly plants: completed by 37.9% of respondents. tor-friendly plants and pollinating in- Reasons for and barriers to purchase. It is of interest to note that of these sects will allow for both expansion of HortTechnology 27:831–839. open answer responses, many respon- MG knowledge on this topic and the Dorn, S.T., M.G. Newberry, III, E.M. dents (44.3%) answered ‘‘UF/IFAS’’ dispersal of that knowledge to larger Bauske, and S.V. Pannisi. 2018. Exten- and/or ‘‘EDIS’’ (Electronic Data audiences with the overall goal of sion master gardeners of the 21st century: supporting pollinating insect com- Educated, prosperous, and committed. munities. Differences in perceived HortTechnology 28:218–229. and tested knowledge of both polli- Evans, J. and A. Mathur. 2005. The value nator-friendly plants and insect polli- of online surveys. Internet Res. 15:195– nators also suggest an emphasis to be 219. given in developing targeted exten- Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G. Asner, C. sion programs to meet these needs. Barford, G. Bonan, S. Carpenter, F.S. By providing additional identification Chaplin, M. Coe, G. Daily, H. Gibbs, J. materials to our MG volunteers on Helkowski, T. Holloway, E. Howard, C. Fig. 2. Individual Florida Master important pollinating insects such as Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. Patz, C. Prentice, Gardener responses when asked how Florida native bee communities, we N. Ramankutty, and P. Snyder. 2005. Global many pollinator-friendly plants they can try to alleviate some of the hard- consequences of land use. Science 309: currently grow in their home garden/ ship these organisms face as a result of 570–574. landscape. our changing landscape patterns. Hoshiba, H. and M. Sasaki. 2008. Per- spectives of multi-modal contribution of honeybee resources to our life. Entomol. Res. 38:15–21. Lim,H.,S.Lee,andK.Nam.2007. Validating e-learning factors affecting training effectiveness. Intl. J. Inf. Mgt. 27:22–35. Meyer, M. and K. Foord. 2008. Con- sumer preferences and perceptions of gardening information. HortTechnology 18:162–167. Michner, C.D. 2000. Bees of the world. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. Novacek, M. 2008. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:11571–11578. Fig. 3. Individual Florida Master Gardener (MG) survey responses when asked their preferred mode of learning more about pollinators and pollinator plants Pascarella, J., K. Waddington, and P. from six choices: interactive phone-application, live webinar, a YouTube video Neal. 1999. The bee fauna (Hymentop- sharing platform (YouTube, San Bruno, CA), a website, face-to-face class, and tera: Apoidea) of Everglades National Park, pamphlets. Florida and adjacent areas: Distribution,
4of5 • https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 phenology, and biogeography. J. Kans. Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citi- Vines, K.A., K. Jeannette, E. Eubanks, M. Entomol. Soc. 72:32–45. zen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:467– Lawrence, and R. Radharishna. 2016. 471. Extension master gardener social media Pettis, J. and K. Delaplane. 2010. Co- needs: A national study. J. Ext. 54(2): ordinated responses to honeybee decline Smith, T. 2016. Honeybees: The queens 2FEA5. 7 Nov 2019.
• https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04460-19 5of5