A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAMS
AND A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is
my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not
include proprietary or classified information.
___________________________________________
Emily Diane Harris
Certificate of Approval
_____________________________ _____________________________
D. Joseph Eakes, Co-Chair Carolyn W. Robinson, Co-Chair
Professor Assistant Professor
Horticulture Horticulture
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jeff L. Sibley George T. Flowers
Professor Dean
Horticulture Graduate School
ii
A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAMS
AND A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM
Emily Diane Harris
A Thesis
Submitted to
the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of
Master of Science
Auburn, Alabama
December 19, 2008
iii
A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAMS
AND A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM
Emily Diane Harris
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion,
upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all
publication rights.
____________________________
Signature of Author
____________________________
Date of Graduation
iv
VITA
Emily Diane Harris, daughter of Danny and Diane Harris was born May 3, 1985 in
Cullman, Alabama. She graduated from Fairview High School in 2003. She attended
Wallace State Community College and transferred to Auburn University in 2004. She
graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Horticulture in August 2006. She entered the
Graduate School of Auburn University in August 2006 and finished a Master?s of
Science degree in December 2008.
v
THESIS ABSTRACT
A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAMS
AND A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT SELECTION/INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM
Emily Diane Harris
Master of Science, December 19, 2008
(B.S. Auburn University)
109 Typed Pages
Directed by Carolyn W. Robinson and D. Joseph Eakes
Over the past fifteen years, many states have established statewide plant
selection/introduction programs for the purpose of promoting and marketing selected
plants to consumers to increase sales for the Green Industry. However, little to no
research has been completed to compare the programs on structure, operation, and
success. The first part of this research uses an internet survey to gather information on
the programs across the country. The survey asked many questions including how the
programs were set up, who was involved, how the plants are selected, and how they
market the selected plants to consumers. The survey determined most programs were a
partnership between a green association, university, industry, botanical garden and/or
vi
state arboretum. The majority of respondents had committee(s) to nominate and select
plants. A little over half of the programs have plant trials as part of the selection process.
Funding and program support were reported as problems from the beginning of the
program. Programs were funded by grants, support from sponsors, royalties, and sale of
promotional items.
The second part of this research surveyed Alabama growers and retailers to determine
their opinion about a potential plant selection program. The survey determined what level
of involvement they would like to have in a potential program, how they would like the
program to be set up, and general questions about their business. Over 90% of
respondents wanted to have some involvement in the potential program including
growing and selling the plants, serving on a committee, nominating plants, and marketing
the selected plants. Most respondents thought a plant selection program could help their
business. Results indicate potential for an Alabama plant selection program.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank her committee, Dr. Eakes, Dr. Robinson, and Dr. Sibley
for their help and guidance throughout this research project. Thanks goes to Ashley
Baker for helping prepare survey envelopes and Ann Fleener for helping with statistical
problems. Thanks goes to Mr. James Harwell and the Alabama Nursery and Landscape
Association for their support of this project. Also the author would like to thank her
parents, Diane and Danny Harris, for their continuing encouragement in this process.
viii
Style manual or journal used
American Society of Horticultural Science
Computer software used
Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007, and SPSS versions 16.1 and 16.0
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES???????????????????????.. x
CHAPTER I LITERATURE REVIEW???????????????. 1
CHAPTER II SURVEY OF EXISTING STATE PLANT
SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAMS???????????? 33
CHAPTER III A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO
DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT
SELECTION/INTRODUCTION PROGRAM????????????. 57
CHAPTER IV FINAL DISCUSSIONS??????????????? 73
APPENDICES????????????????????????... 78
APPENDIX A????????????????????? ... 79
APPENDIX B?????????????????????? 81
APPENDIX C?????????????????????? 82
APPENDIX D?????????????????????? 92
APPENDIX E?????????????????????? 97
x
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER II
Table 1. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs?
plant nomination committee???????????...????.?..48
Table 2. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs?
nomination process where there is no nomination committee involved?49
Table 3. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs?
selection committee????????????????????...50
Table 4. The type of plants selected and frequency of selection by existing plant
selection/introduction programs????????????????.51
Table 5. Length of existing plant selection/introduction programs? plant trials for
each plant category as part of the plant selection process?????.....52
Table 6. Survey items from the Alabama grower/retailer survey with a high
positive or negative Pearson?s correlation ????.????......??.53
Table 7. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a high positive
or negative Pearson?s correlation ????????????...?...?54
Table 8. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a moderate
positive Pearson?s correlation
.
.????????????????..55
Table 9. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a moderate
negative Pearson?s correlation ???????????????.?.56
CHAPTER III
Table 1. The types of plants grown and sold by Alabama growers and retailers....69
Table 2. Types of businesses and operations for Alabama growers and retailers...70
Table 3. Survey items from the Alabama grower and retailer survey with a
moderate positive or negative Pearson?s correlation????????.71
xi
Table 4. Survey items from the Alabama grower and retailer survey with a high
positive or negative Pearson?s correlation????????????.72
1
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Gardening ranks as one the top three hobbies among Americans (National Gardening
Association, 2007). A New England survey determined relaxation and enjoyment was
the top reason consumers garden and gardeners use a variety of sources for gardening
information (Brand and Leonard, 2001). The top four information sources listed by
respondents were independent garden centers and nurseries, magazines, friends, and mail
order catalogs. When asked to determine important features of retail stores, respondents
stated healthy plants, informative plant labels, knowledgeable staff, and selection of plant
materials were most important. Landscapers also use nurserymen for advice on
purchasing plants and gathering plant information (Garber et al., 1995). When asked to
identify how university personnel can support the installation industry, 16% expressed
the need for testing and introduction of new plant varieties and cultivars, and for this
information to be easily available. A state plant selection or introduction program has the
possibility to influence landscape installers in selecting high quality, low maintenance
plants, and keep them up to date on current research and plant trials.
In the early 1990?s, many states started plant selection programs to help consumers
select quality plants that perform in the landscape (Stegelin et al., 2001). Programs have
been labeled as marketing, evaluation, promotional, and/or introductional programs.
2
After a review of the literature, very little research was found on these programs. Some
plant promotion programs are successful and have benefited the local Green Industry in
their state; however, some programs no longer exist due to various reasons. All programs
have the same general goal, which is to recognize specific plants and advertise these
plants to consumers using different marketing techniques to increase sales of selected
plants for the Green Industry. Even though their goals are basically the same, program
operation varies greatly.
The Programs
Most programs of significance are listed on the National Arboretum?s website
(http://usna.usda.gov/), the rest can be found through internet searches, journal articles,
and links from other programs. Programs are included if plants are selected and
promoted for specific states or regions and linked to a university, state green association,
arboretum, or botanical garden. It is possible more programs exist than are named below;
however, our extensive search located 20 programs of significance.
1. Name: The Cary Award- Distinctive Plants for New England.
Purpose: ?To inform home gardeners which plants would be good choices in
their landscape; to instill confidence in the home gardener?s plant selection; to
increase the diversity of plant material utilized by gardeners, landscape designers,
and architects? (Cary Award, 2007).
Years active: 1997 to present.
Sponsors: Worchester County Horticultural Society, Massachusetts Horticultural
Society, New England Nursery Association, Massachusetts Nursery and
Landscape Association.
3
Type of plants selected: Trees, woody shrubs, vines, and ground covers.
Selection process: Anyone can nominate a plant but winners are selected by a
committee of regional experts and members of the Worcester County
Horticultural Society. To be nominated, a plant must be hardy in at least two of
the four USDA Hardiness Zones in New England (3-6) and available in the
industry. Plants are selected based on hardiness, uniqueness, and a long growing
season.
Committee structure: The Cary Award Selection Committee consists of regional
experts and members of the Worcester County Horticultural Society.
Plant Trials: Not specified.
Other information: The website lists nurseries where The Cary Award plants are
available to consumers. A downloadable brochure and poster is available on the
website to advertise and promote the current year?s winners.
Website: www.caryaward.org.
(Cary Award, 2007).
2. Name: The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society?s Gold Medal Plant Award
Purpose: ?To recognize trees, shrubs, and woody vines of outstanding merit?
(Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, 2007).
Years active: 1978 to present.
Sponsors: The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society.
Type of plants selected: Trees, shrubs, and woody vines.
4
Selection process: Plants are chosen based on consumer appeal, performance,
hardiness, pest and disease resistance, and ease of growing. All plants must be in
a propagation program to insure availability.
Committee structure: The Gold Medal Plant Award Committee consists of
selected horticulturists.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: No information is listed how the plants are promoted to
consumers.
Website: http://www.goldmedalplants.org/.
(Pennsylvania Hort. Soc., 2007).
3. Name: Georgia Gold Medal
Purpose: ?To promote the production, sale, and use of superior ornamental
plants? (Univ. of Georgia, 2007).
Years active: 1993 to present.
Sponsors: The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service and the University of
Georgia.
Type of plants selected: Annuals, herbaceous perennials, shrubs and trees.
Selection process: The committee takes plant nominations from the Georgia
Green Industry. Nominations are narrowed down to four or five plants in each
category and the committee votes to select one winner in each category. Criteria
for selection are consumer appeal, seasonal interest, survivability, low
maintenance, ease of propagation, and production. Plants are selected three years
5
before promotion and announced to growers to insure adequate numbers when
announced to the public.
Committee structure: The Georgia Plant Selections Committee consists of
nurserymen, growers, garden center retailers, landscape professionals, county
extension agents, and university faculty.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service publishes
promotional literature and distributes it to growers, retailers, landscapers, county
extension agents, and consumers. Media packets are sent to newspapers and trade
journals to announce each year?s winners. Funding comes from industry
sponsors.
Website:
http://www.caes.uga.edu/departments/hort/extension/goldmedal/index.html.
(Univ. of Georgia, 2007).
4. Name: Florida Plants of the Year
Purpose: ?To promote the use of superior and proven Florida plants? (Florida
Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, 2007).
Years active: 1998 to present.
Sponsors: Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association (FNGLA).
Type of plants selected: Shrubs, trees, vines, perennials, bedding plants, ground
covers, aquatic, and foliage plants.
6
Selection process: Plants are nominated by professionals from the green industry
using a submission form located on the program?s website and a committee
selects the winners.
Committee structure: The selection committee consists of growers,
horticulturists, retailers, landscape professionals, and University of Florida
faculty.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: Promotional items are available to growers and retailers by
request through the website.
Website: http://www.fngla.org/news-programs/plantsofyear.asp.
(Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Assn., 2007).
5. Name: Theodore Klein Plant Award, Kentucky
Purpose: ?To promote enthusiasm for and interest in plants among gardeners; to
encourage development of new cultivars and hybrids by Kentucky Nurserymen;
to increase the recognition, reputation, and profitability of the Kentucky nursery
and landscape industries? (Univ. of Kentucky, 2007).
Years active: 1995 to present.
Sponsors: University of Kentucky Nursery/Landscape Program, Kentucky
Nursery and Landscape Association, and Yew Dell Gardens.
Type of plants selected: Woody and perennial ornamental plants.
Selection process: Plants are selected by the Theodore Plant Award Committee.
Plants must have established propagation and production practices, be established
in the state of Kentucky, be resistant to pests, and have at least two or more plant
7
specimens close to major cities of Kentucky. Plant selections occur at least two
years before public promotion.
Committee structure: The Theodore Plant Award Committee consists of
selected industry members.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: Winners are announced to the green industry at conferences,
trade shows, and through newsletters. Posters in pdfs are available on the
website.
Website: http://www.ca.uky.edu/HLA/Dunwell/TKleinPA.html.
(Univ. of Kentucky, 2007).
6. Name: GreatPlants
?
for the Great Plains
Purpose: ?The goal of the GreatPlants
?
Program is to bring superior ornamental
landscape plants into commercial production to meet the challenging growing
conditions of Nebraska and the Great Plains? (Nebraska Statewide Arboretum,
2007).
Years active: 1998 to present.
Sponsors: Nebraska Nursery and Landscape Association (NNLA) and Nebraska
Statewide Arboretum.
Types of plants selected: Perennials, shrubs, conifers, grasses, and trees.
Selection process: Growers can nominate plants for consideration as long as the
plant is an underutilized tree, shrub, or perennial. Plants should exhibit hardiness,
adaptability, characteristics appropriate for general landscape use, and be
8
available in the industry. Members of the NNLA vote on nominated plants to
select winners (R. Henrickson, personal communication).
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plants trialed: Not specified.
Other information: From the website, growers, and retailers can order
bookmarks, tags, and banners. The GreatPlants
?
Program also develops and
releases named drought tolerant cultivars every year.
Website: http://arboretum.unl.edu/greatplants/;
http://www.nnla.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.greatPlants.
(Nebraska Nursery & Landscape Assn., 2007; Nebraska Statewide Arboretum,
2007).
7. Name: Plants of Merit
?
, Missouri
Purpose: ?To promote plants that are proven to be well-adapted in the lower
Midwest for the purpose of increasing plant diversity in the home and commercial
landscape and to raise the public?s awareness of beautiful and environmentally
friendly plants for the home landscape? (Missouri Botanical Gardens, 2007).
Years active: 1998 to present.
Sponsors: Missouri Botanical Garden?s William T. Kemper Center for Home
Gardening, Powell Gardens in Kansas City, University of Missouri Extension,
Mizzou Botanic Garden, Missouri Landscape & Nursery Association, Illinois
Green Industry Association, industry, and non-profit organizations.
Types of plants selected: Annuals, perennial, trees, shrubs, and vines.
9
Selection process: Horticulture industry members help in selection of new Plants
of Merit? by reviewing plant performance. Selected plants are selected based on
diversity, low pesticide requirements, reliability, low maintenance, low energy
use, and low water use.
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: New plants are added each year and remain on the list for a
number of years and then are retired to emeritus status. Retired plants can be
accessed from the website.
Website: http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Merit.asp.
(Missouri Botanical Gardens, 2007).
8. Name: Arkansas Select
Purpose: ?To identify interesting and superior plants for Arkansas gardeners?
(Univ. of Arkansas, 2006).
Years active: 1998 to 2005. The program was discontinued after the program
director retired and his position was not filled (D. Hensley, personal
communication).
Sponsors: Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service and Arkansas Green Industry
Association.
Types of plants selected: Ornamental landscape plants.
Selection process: Industry leaders made plant nominations and selections.
Selected plants performed throughout the state and were generally pest free and
easy to maintain.
10
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: No other information was listed.
Website: http://www.arhomeandgarden.org/landscaping/ArkansasSelect/.
(Univ. of Arkansas, 2006).
9. Name: Oklahoma Proven
Purpose: ?To enhance the profitability of Oklahoma Green Industries by
evaluating and promoting plant material suited to Oklahoma growing conditions?
(Anella et al., 2001).
Years active: 1999 to present.
Sponsors: Oklahoma State University (OSU) Department of Horticulture and
Landscape Architecture, OSU Botanical Garden, Oklahoma Botanical Garden and
Arboretum, and Oklahoma Garden Industry Cooperators. Oklahoma Nursery and
Landscape Association, Oklahoma Greenhouse Growers Association, OGE
Energy Corporation, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station, and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture.
Types of plants selected: Trees, shrubs, perennials, and annuals.
Selection process: Criteria for selection are plants suitable for Oklahoma,
available in the trade, low maintenance, tolerant of many conditions, noninvasive,
and efficient propagation. Recommendations are made from the advisory
committee to the executive committee. The executive committee makes the final
decision about which plants are selected based on plant evaluations after they
become available.
11
Committee structure: The Oklahoma Proven management team consists of
director, plant evaluation coordinator, and marketing coordinator. The advisory
committee consists of 40 extension personnel, retailers, nurserymen, growers, and
members of horticultural societies. The executive committee consists of members
of the Oklahoma wholesale and retail industries, and former members of the OSU
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture.
Plant trials: Yes, herbaceous plant materials are evaluated for at least three years,
and woody plant materials are tested for at least five years.
Other information: Marketing and promotion of selected plants involves point of
purchase materials, press releases, cooperative extension, newsletters,
newspapers, and television. Retailers and wholesalers are asked to participate in
marketing plants by displaying posters and purchasing pot stakes. Purchase of pot
tags provides some funding for the program.
Website: http://www.oklahomaproven.org/.
(Anella et al., 2001; Oklahoma Proven, 2007).
10. Name: Texas Superstar
?
Purpose: ?To ensure that consumers have access to and use the best, most
environmental responsible plant materials and products and to help the Green
Industry be as profitable as possible? (Mackay et al., 2001).
Years active: 1989 to present.
Sponsors: Coordinated Educational and Marketing Program (CEMAP), Texas
Nursery and Landscape Association, and Texas Department of Agriculture.
Types of plants selected: Annuals, perennials, and shrubs.
12
Selection process: Plants are tested statewide at least two years before selection.
Professional horticulturalists evaluate potential plants on production and field
performance. Plants with consistently superior performance are marketed as
Texas Superstar
?
plants. Many plants go through preliminary trials such as
university garden trials before CEMAP trials to determine if the plant preformed
well enough to enter statewide testing. Growers are notified of selections at least
one year in advance. Selected plants are marketed to consumers through
newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.
Committee structure: The executive board consists of eight university staff
including administration, extension, research, and teaching. The advisory broad
consists of 50 members of the Texas ornamental industry.
Plant trials: Yes, for at least two years.
Other information: All Texas Superstar
?
plants are labeled with the Texas
Superstar
?
logo. The logo lets consumers know plants have been tested and have
a proven performance.
Website: http://www.texassuperstar.com/.
(Arnold et al., 1998; Mackay et al., 2001; Stegelin et al., 2001; Texas Superstars,
2006).
11. Name: Plant Select
?
in Colorado
Purpose: ?To seek out, identify, and distribute the very best plants for landscapes
and gardens from the intermountain region to the high plains? (Plant Select,
2007).
Years active: 1997 to present.
13
Sponsors: Denver Botanic Gardens, Colorado State University, and
horticulturalists throughout the Rocky Mountain region.
Types of plants selected: Landscape plants.
Selection process: Plants must be able to survive climatic and landscape
conditions of the Rocky Mountain region; they can be old, underused plants or
new introductions. Testing does occur on superior forms or hybrids.
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Yes.
Other information: Ninety demonstration gardens in the region are open to the
public which allows consumers to view Plant Select? plants in use. The website
also listed where consumers can purchase Plant Select? plants in the region.
Website: http://www.plantselect.org/.
(Plant Select, 2007).
12. Name: Utah?s Choice
Purpose: ?To focus the regional nursery industry on producing steady supplies of
(native) selections so a distinctive Intermountain landscape style can begin to
emerge? (Meyer, 2005).
Years active: 2003 to present.
Sponsors: Intermountain Native Plant Growers Association (INPGA), a group of
nurseries, wholesalers, retail nurseries, garden centers, and landscape companies.
Types of plants selected: Perennials, grasses, shrubs, trees, and succulents.
14
Selection process: All selected plants are native and require fewer resources
when compared to traditional plants. Recommendations come from members of
INPGA.
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: To market selected native plants, brochures, plant tags, and
plant signs are available to growers and retailers. The program has a website and
uses local newspapers to increase consumer awareness. The program is not only
providing information to consumers, but also to growers about propagating native
plants since many of these plants require different propagation methods than
traditional landscape plants. Various organizations and associations have
provided funding to assist and support the program.
Website: http://www.utahschoice.org/choice.
(Intermountain Native Plant Growers Assn., 2008; Meyer, 2005).
13. Name: Great Plant Picks, Washington
Purpose: ?To build a comprehensive palette of outstanding plants for Pacific
Northwest gardens? (Great Plant Picks, 2007).
Years active: 2001 to present.
Sponsors: Elisabeth Carey Miller Botanical Garden.
Type of plants selected: Perennials, bulbs, shrubs, vines, trees, and conifers.
Selection process: The selection process is done by the Great Plant Picks
Selection Committee through group discussions. The group visits regional
gardens for field evaluations of potential plants. Plants need to be hardy, disease
15
and pest resistant, adaptable, non-invasive, have prolonged season interest, be
available from at least two retailers, and easy to maintain and grow.
Committee structure: Great Plant Picks Selection Committee consists of
approximately 40 horticulturists from Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.
Three advisory committees exist to offer opinions in the areas of their expertise.
Plant trials: Yes.
Other information: The program is based at the Elisabeth Carey Miller
Botanical Garden in Seattle, WA.
Website: http://www.greatplantpicks.org/.
(Great Plant Picks, 2007).
14. Name: Pennsylvania Gardener Select
Purpose: ?To expand Pennsylvania plant markets through education, evaluation,
and display gardens? (Sellmer et al., 2003).
Years active: 1999 to 2006, program was discontinued due to a loss of trial space
(J.C. Sellmer, personal communication).
Sponsors: Pennsylvania Floral Industries Association, Pennsylvania Landscape
and Nursery Association, Penn State Horticulture Trials Gardens, Penn State
Master Gardener Program, and Penn State Cooperative Extension.
Type of plants selected: Annuals and perennials.
Selection process: Plants were selected from the Penn State Trial Garden and
trained Master Gardeners conducted the plant evaluations. Plants were evaluated
on flowering, uniformity, foliage, growth, vigor, pest and disease resistance, and
16
consumer appeal. Display garden coordinators and industry representatives chose
the selected plants.
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Yes.
Other information: Selected plants were marketed through association
newsletters, newspapers, magazines, and displays at gardening events.
Website: N/A.
(Pennsylvania State Univ., 2007; Sellmer et al., 2003).
15. Name: Mississippi Medallion Program
Purpose: ?To identify plants that perform exceptionally well throughout
Mississippi for inclusions in the Medallion program and to promote the proper use
of these plants in landscapes within Mississippi? (Mississippi Nursery &
Landscape Assn., 2007).
Years active: 1996 to present.
Sponsors: Mississippi Nursery and Landscape Association (MNLA), Mississippi
State University Extension Service, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station, and the Mississippi Plant Selection Committee.
Types of plants selected: Landscape plants.
Selection process: The committee makes selections based on group discussions
(P. Knight, personal communication).
Committee structure: Mississippi Plant Selection Committee.
Plant trials: Not specified.
17
Other information: The program uses newspaper articles, marketing campaigns
by garden centers, public radio, television and point-of-sale material to advertise
and promote selected plants.
Website: http://www.msnla.org/.
(Mississippi Nursery & Landscape Assn., 2007; Stegelin et al., 2001.).
16. Name: Ohio Plant Selection Program
Purpose: Not specified.
Years active: Not specified.
Sponsors: Ohio Nursery and Landscape Association.
Type of plants selected: Ornamental landscape plants.
Selection process: ONLA Plant Selection Committee selected the plants.
Committee structure: ONLA Plant Selection Committee.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: No other information was listed.
Website: www.onla.org/selection.html.
(Ohio Nursery & Landscape Assn., 2007).
17. Name: Pride of Kansas Plants
Purpose: ?To make plant selection easier? (Kansas Nursery & Landscape Assn.,
2007).
Years active: 2001 to present.
Sponsors: Kansas Nursery and Landscape Association (KNLA) and Kansas State
University Research and Extension.
Type of plants selected: Trees, shrubs, and perennials.
18
Selection process: KNLA members nominate plants in each category. A
selection committee selects winning plants from nominations. All selections are
trialed by Research and Extension personnel to test each plant?s performance in
the Kansas climate.
Committee structure: Selection committee.
Plant trials: Yes.
Other information: No other information was listed.
Website: http://www.kansasnla.org/prod02.htm.
(Kansas Nursery & Landscape Assn., 2007).
18. Name: Prairie Star Collection, also includes the Prairie Bloom Perennials
Purpose: To find ?annual flowers of great vigor and spectacular bloom
throughout the entire summer growing season? (Prairie Star Flowers, 2007).
Years active: Not specified.
Sponsors: Kansas State University.
Types of plants selected: Prairie Star selects annuals, and Prairie Bloom
Collection selects perennials.
Selection process: Prairie Star plants are annual cultivars selected from the
Kansas State University bedding plant research trials where plants have been
trialed for two years or more. Plants are rated on vigor, floral display, and
growth. Prairie Bloom is a collection of perennial cultivars that have been trialed
in the Kansas State University bedding plants research trials for three to five
years. Perennials are rated on vigor, floral display, and growth.
Committee structure: Not specified.
19
Plant trials: Yes, for two to five years.
Other information: No other information was listed.
Website: http://www.prairiestarflowers.com/.
(Prairie Star Flowers, 2007).
19. Name: Chicagoland Grows
?
Purpose: ?To promote the use of new plant cultivars that are well-adapted to the
growing conditions of the Upper Midwest? (Chicagoland Grows, 2007).
Years active: 1986 to present.
Sponsors: Chicago Botanic Garden, the Morton Arboretum and Ornamental
Grower?s Association of Northern Illinois (OGA).
Types of plants selected: Ornamental landscape plants.
Selection process: Industry professionals develop, select, evaluate, and market
recommended plant cultivars. Potential plants are evaluated in different
landscape and nursery conditions for up to 10 years. Plants must be adapted to
upper Midwest region with proven performances for both landscape professionals
and home gardeners.
Committee structure: Not specified.
Plant trials: Yes.
Other information: The program?s breeding and research effort is funded by
royalties from sales of selected plants.
Website: http://www.chicagolandgrows.org/index.php.
(Chicagoland Grows, 2007).
20. Name: Louisiana Select
*
20
Purpose: ?To promote quality ornamental plants to consumers in the spring and
fall? (Owings, 2000).
Years active: 1996-2000, Program was successful but was discontinued due to
the lack of mass media organization to promote the program (A. Owing, personal
communication).
Sponsors: LSU Agricultural Center and Louisiana Nursery and Landscape
Association (LNLA)
Types of plants selected: Ornamental plants.
Selection process: A committee of extension personnel, landscapers, retailers,
and wholesale growers selected plants.
Committee structure: Unknown.
Plant trials: Not specified.
Other information: Signs and banners were provided to retailers to promote
Louisiana Select plants.
Website: N/A.
(Owings, 2000; A. Owings, personal communication).
*
Program was found after survey was distributed and was not included in the survey sample.
Program Impacts on the Green Industry
Plant promotion programs have helped the Green Industry in many ways including
increasing awareness of selected plants to consumers. Increased awareness of superior or
noteworthy plants can lead to increased sales of plants and help make promotion
programs successful (Stegelin et al., 2001). Some programs have had very successful
promotional campaigns for selected plants and reported increases in sales. One plant that
21
had a successful campaign with the Mississippi Medallion program was panola (Viola x
wittrockiana x V. cornuta). No panola were sold in Mississippi before being selected as a
2000 Mississippi Medallion winner (Winter et al., 2001). However, after being named as
an award winner, consumer interest increased and most growers sold out of the panola.
The amount sold was not reported. Another successful plant was Biloxi Blue verbena
(Verbena x hybrida 'Biloxi Blue?). One grower reported selling 16,000 pots the year of
promotion and 10,000 pots the following year without promotion, showing previously
promoted plants can still be popular and remain in demand (Winter et al., 2001).
Mackay and others (2001) reported the success of several selected plants in the Texas
Superstar
?
program. Mari-mums (Tagetes erecta ?Antigua?) is one of the successful
plants. There was an increase from 1,000 to 90,374 plants sold after being promoted as a
Texas Superstar? and 96,460 plants being sold the year after, resulting in $238,435 in
sales at four selected nurseries. At a multilocation retail store, a 5000% increase in the
number of plants sold, and a 6000% increase in gross sales occurred for VIP petunia
(Petunia violacea ?VIP?) compared to the previous year. The successes of programs are
not limited to ornamental plants. Over 600,000 Merced tomatoes (Lycopersicon
esculentum ?Merced?) were sold in the first weekend the variety was released as a Texas
Superstar?. In the first 10 years, estimates of $10 million in new plant sales were
generated as a result of Texas Superstar
?
promotions (Mackay et al., 2001).
The Oklahoma Proven program has seen increased sales also. One Oklahoma nursery
reported a 117% increase in number of plants sold and an 81% increase in revenue when
comparing before and after sales of Oklahoma Proven plants (Anella et al., 2001). The
program experienced greater sales and success with herbaceous plant material than
22
woody plant material. Compared to the previous year, sales of purple fountain grass
(Pennisetum setaceum ?Rubrum?) and ?Powis Castle? artemisia (Artemisia arborescens x
A. absinthium) increased 116% and 228%, respectively. Sales of oak-leaf hydrangea
(Hydrangea quercifolia) increased 53% and the sales of Chinese pistache (Pistacia
chinensis) increased 26% compared to the previous year when no promotion occurred.
Also, while in existence Louisiana Select reported increased sales ranging from 300% to
2500% for selected plants (Owings, 2000).
Evaluation and Trial Programs
Most states have university trial gardens or plant evaluation programs and many plant
selection/introduction programs have incorporated or included trial gardens and
evaluation programs into their promotional programs (Anella et al., 2001; Mackay et al.,
2001). Trial gardens and plant evaluation programs are similar to plant selection
programs in that they trial plants to determine the best performing plants; however,
usually they do not have marketing campaigns to promote plants. The University of
Arkansas Plant Evaluation Program evaluated plant material at different locations
throughout Arkansas (Lindstrom et al., 2001). There were plans to integrate the
evaluation program with Arkansas Select, the state plant selection program before it was
discontinued. Trials were located in each of the three different cold hardiness zones in
the state. Trees and shrubs were tested for five years on adaptability, cold hardiness, and
usability in the landscape while herbaceous perennials were tested for three years. The
plants were given a starter charge of fertilizer, mulched, and watered at planting. Drip
irrigation was supplied as needed thereafter. Growth, flowering habits, and any problems
23
were recorded. Performance reports were published at the end of the year. The biggest
challenge to the program was funding.
The University of Georgia trial gardens have been used to evaluate annuals and
perennials marketed nationwide (Armitage and Green, 2001). In 1998, a plant
introduction program, AthensSelect
?
was started to nationally market selected plants
from the trial gardens; this program was not included in the survey due to the fact it was
an independent program and not sponsored by a state green association. Only plants that
perform in heat and humidity are selected as AthensSelect
?
. The East Texas bedding
plant pack and garden performance trials also have potential to find award-winning plants
and is the preliminary trials for many plants that are entered into the Texas Superstar
?
testing program (Mackay et al., 2001; Pemberton and Roberson, 2001).
Plant selection and evaluation programs are not limited to herbaceous plant material;
Auburn University has a history of evaluation programs for shade trees (Blackwood et
al., 2005; Williams et al., 2001). The first tree evaluation program began in 1980 with
the purpose to gather and distribute information on selected shade trees and ornamental
trees for the Southeast. Tree species were evaluated on annual growth rate, natural
attrition, and aesthetics. The evaluation determined many of the tree species were not
adapted to the southeast region while some were well adapted to high temperatures and
humidity, which are present in the south. Information gained through this evaluation has
been shared with industry, extension agents, master gardeners, and other agencies and
organizations by publishing the reports of the study in a book (Williams et al., 1993).
Plant evaluations, selections, and introductions have been common in the horticulture
industry for many years and have occurred on many levels including regional and
24
national levels. The National Arboretum has introduced over 650 new plant cultivars as
part of its breeding program (Pooler, 2001). Initial selection and evaluation of new plants
takes place at the National Arboretum. However, plants must be evaluated in a wide
range of environments including different climates and different production practices.
Cooperators sign agreements to evaluate test plant materials. In the past, the National
Arboretum has not promoted its cultivars, but recently it has begun releasing fact sheets
containing information about each plant?s landscape uses and requirements, and
propagation information. These fact sheets are helpful to many in the Green Industry.
Impact of Programs on Customers and Potential Customers
In order to determine potential customers for Pennsylvania Gardener Select, a survey
was distributed at a flower show (Wehry et al., 2004). Respondents were divided into
three distinct consumer segments: novice gardener, non-gardener, and avid gardener.
The survey determined avid gardeners were likely to purchase plants from an evaluation
program and were more likely to purchase plants from a local retailer. The survey
concluded the avid gardener group could be the potential market for Pennsylvania
Gardener Select plants and other plant selection programs.
Another survey was conducted in Pennsylvania to determine consumer preferences for
the Pennsylvania Gardener Select (PGS) Program (Wehry et al., 2005). Eighty-five
percent of respondents said they were interested in purchasing plant material that had
been tested throughout the state. Respondents familiar with the program were likely to
be members of a Master Gardener Program and/or other gardening groups. Respondents
who had purchased PGS plants, all said they would purchase recommended plants again.
25
The majority of respondents who had purchased PGS selections became aware of the
program through newspapers, gardening magazines, or Master Gardeners.
Aspects like testing and proving a plant?s performance can help increase a plant?s
appeal to consumer, however, there are things that can hurt sales. A survey of Georgia
licensed retail nurseries determined potential negative factors on plant sales and if new
promotional campaigns had an impact on sales (Garber and Bondari, 1998). Individual
customers make up nearly 80% of customers visiting garden centers and landscapers
make 15.4% of customers. Almost two-thirds of plant material sold in garden centers
came from in-state growers. Respondents were asked to list factors that have negative
impacts on sales. Competition from mass merchants topped the list with bad weather and
the economy tying for second place. They were also asked to list customer complaints.
Price too high was the top complaint, poor plant performance was the second, and poor
quality was the third greatest complaint. The survey also inquired about garden center?s
participation with the Georgia Gold Medal Program and its effect on the sale of other
plants. About 10% reported that they did not sell Gold Medal plants, 43.6% reported the
program had little to no effect on sales of other plants, and 46.1% reported Gold Medal
Plants produced pull-through sales of other plant materials. Even though respondents are
about split on whether the program helps sales, such a high number reporting the program
does help increase sales, indicates promotional programs have potential to increase sales
of selected plants and other plant sales as well. Since most mass merchants do not sell
plants from state plant selection programs, plant promotion programs have potential to
help retailers compete with mass merchants.
26
Many plant promotion programs use magazine and newspaper articles as a way to
market and advertise selected plants to consumers (Garber and Bondari, 1999). Programs
should continue to use these resources because garden writers can have an impact on
consumers? plant purchases. However, writers have to be supplied with information. Of
a survey of garden writers, 77% said the most used source of information was personal
growing experience when determining which plants to write about. Respondents rated
availability of information and success stories from local arboretum/botanical gardens as
the second and third most important factors, respectively. When asked to predict which
plant traits would be in future demand, they said multi-seasonal color/interest, pest
resistant or tolerant and able to withstand periods of drought as the top three plant traits.
Programs should stay in contact with garden writers by supplying garden writers with
actual plant selections and supplying them with stories of the program?s selections since
they are a way to reach consumers and promote selected plants.
Published success stories suggest plant selection/introduction programs are significant
and can have great benefit to local green industries (Anella et al., 2001; Mackay et al.,
2001; Stegelin et al., 2001). Plant promotion programs all have the same basic objective:
to select plants that will perform in a specific state or region as a way to help educate
consumers about proper plant choices and to increase sales for growers and retailers.
Little to no research evaluating plant promotion programs has been completed to
determine best management practices. The question has been asked if the Alabama
Green Industry would benefit from a plant selection/introduction program. Ornamental
horticulture is already an important component of Alabama?s economy as it the fastest
growing agricultural industry in the state. When compared to other states, the Alabama
27
Nursery and Greenhouse industry ranked 17
th
in the nation in 2007 (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2007). In 2007, there was a total of $2.1 billion in sales for the nursery,
greenhouse, floriculture, and sod industries. As of 2003, there were a total of 767 nursery
and greenhouse firms and 727 retail firms in Alabama with total sales for nursery and
greenhouse in Alabama of $204.9 million. Sales for retail garden centers in 2003 were
$645 million (Bellenger, 2005).
The objectives of the research presented in this thesis were to evaluate how plant
selection/promotion programs are structured, how they operate, their plant selection
process, and their success or demise by surveying existing programs. Another objective
was to determine the potential for a plant selection/introduction program for the state of
Alabama by surveying Alabama growers and retailers for thoughts and opinions on a
potential program and what level of involvement they would like to have in a potential
plant selection program for Alabama. For a potential program in Alabama to be
successful, the support of all of the Green Industry is important.
28
Literature Cited
Anella, L.B., M.A. Schnelle, and D.M. Maronek. 2001. Oklahoma Proven: A plant
evaluation and marketing program. HortTechnology 11:381-384.
Armitage, A.M. and M. Green. 2001. The university trial garden as a tool for evaluating
and introducing new plant materials. HortTechnology 11:368-372.
Arnold, M.A., W. Mackay, S.W. George, and J.M. Parson. 1998. The Coordinated
Educational and Marketing Assistance Program (CEMAP): A case-study in
cooperative industry/university state-wide plant trials and promotion. Proc. 10
th
Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance Conf., St. Louis, MO., 30 Sept-1 Oct
1998.
Bellenger, M. 2005. Selected Topics in Alabama?s environmental horticulture industry:
The economic impact of Alabama?s green industry and migrant labor in
Alabama?s horticulture industry. MS Thesis. Auburn Univ., Auburn.
Blackwood, K.R., J.L. Sibley, C.H. Gilliam, J.D. Williams, and A.W. Caylor. 2005.
Japanese beetle feeding preference among sugar maple cultivars. Proc. SNA Res.
Conf. Vol. 50:170-172.
Brand, M.H. and R.L. Leonard. 2001. Consumer product and service preferences
related to landscape retailing. HortScience 36:1111-1116.
Cary Award. 2007. The Cary Award ? Distinctive plants for New England. 15 March
2007. < http://www.caryaward.org/>.
Chicagoland Grows. 2007. Chicagoland Grows. 15 Mar. 2007.
.
29
Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Assn. 2007. Florida plants of the year.
15 March 2007. .
Garber, M.P. and K. Bondari. 1998. Retail garden outlets: business characteristics and
factors affecting industry performance. J. Environ. Hort. 16:15-19.
Garber, M.P. and K. Bondari. 1999. Garden writers plan to write about. J. Environ.
Hort. 17:39-43.
Garber, M., K. Bondari, and G. Wade. 1995. Educational and marketing programs
serving the landscape industry. HortTechnology 5:72-77.
Great Plant Picks. 2007. Great Plant Picks 18 Mar. 2007.
.
Intermountain Native Plant Growers Assn. 2008. Utah?s choice. 10 April 2008.
.
Lindstrom, J.T., J.A. Robbins, G.L. Klingamn, S. Star, and J. Carson. 2001. The
University of Arkansas plant evaluation program. HortTechnology 11:362-364.
Kansas Landscape & Nursery Assn. 2007. Pride of Kansas. 20 Mar 2007.
.
Mackay, W.A., S.W. George, T.D. Davis, M.A. Arnold, R.D. Lineberger, J.M. Parson,
L.A. Stein, and G.G. Grant. 2001. Texas Superstar and the Coordinated
Educational And Marketing Assistance Program (CEMAP): How we operate.
HortTechnology 11:389-391.
Meyer, S.E. 2005. Utah?s choice is native. Amer. Nurseryman. Feb. 32-34.
Mississippi Nursery & Landscape Assn. 2007. Mississippi medallion. 5 Mar. 2007.
.
30
Missouri Botanical Garden. 2007. Plants of Merit. 18 Feb. 2007.
.
National Gardening Assn. 2007. 2007 Annuals Report. 15 Sep. 2008.
.
Nebraska Nursery & Landscape Assn. 2007. GreatPlants. 7 Feb. 2007.
.
Nebraska Statewide Arboretum. 2007. GreatPlants. 7 Feb. 2007.
.
Ohio Landscape & Nursery Assn. 2007. Ohio plant selection. 13 Feb. 2007.
.
Oklahoma Proven. 2007. Oklahoma Proven superior plants recommended for
Oklahoma. 10 Feb. 2007. .
Owings, A.D. 2000. Louisiana Select - Plant promotion, marketing, and recommendation
efforts for the nursery and landscape industry. HortScience 35:566 (Abstr.).
Pemberton, H.B. and W.E. Roberson. 2001. The East Texas bedding plant pack and
garden performance trials. HortTechnology 11:392-396.
Pennsylvania Horticultural Soc. 2007. Gold Medal Plants. 15 March 2007.
.
Pennsylvania State Univ. 2007. Pennsylvania gardener select. 8 Feb. 2007.
.
Plant Select. 2007. Plant Select. 7 Feb. 2007. < http://plantselect.org/>
Prairie Star Flowers. 2007. Prairie Star Flowers. 15 Mar. 2007.
.
31
Pooler, M.R. 2001. Plant Breeding at the U.S. National Arboretum: Selection,
evaluation, and release of new cultivars. HortTechnology, 11:365-367.
Sellmer, J.C., R.D. Berghage, A.H. Michael, and T. Bilik. 2003. Pennsylvania Gardener
Selects Plant Evaluation Program. J. of Ext. Vol. 41 Feb.
.
Stegelin, F. 2001. Role of point-of-sale information on consumers purchase decisions.
Proc. SNA Res. Conf. Vol. 46: 536-538.
Stegelin, F., S. Turner, and P. Knight. 2001. State Plant Promotion Programs:
Histories and perspectives. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. Vol. 46: 539-531.
Texas Superstars. 2006. Texas Superstars. 10 Feb. 2007.
.
Univ. of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. 2006. Arkansas select. 5 Mar. 2007.
.
Univ. of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. 2007. Georgia
Gold Medal Plants. 15 March 2007.
.
Univ. of Kentucky College of Agriculture. 2007. Theodore Klein plant award. 12
March 2007. < http://www.ca.uky.edu/HLA/Dunwell/TkleinPA.html>.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Alabama State Agriculture Overview ? 2007. 15
Sep 2008. .
32
Wehry, R.H., K M. Kelley, R.D. Berghage, and J.C. Sellmer. 2004. Assessing
Pennsylvania consumer?s gardening experiences and interests to develop
marketing strategies for a state plant promotional program. HortScience 39:874
(Abstr.).
Wehry, R.H., K.M. Kelley, R.D. Berghage, and J.C. Sellmer. 2005. Using intercept and
telephone survey methods to assess consumer awareness and purchasing of
Pennsylvania Gardener Selects. HortTechnology 15:157-163.
Williams, J.D., C.H. Gilliam, G.K. Keever, and J.T. Owen. 2001. The Auburn
University Shade Tree Evaluation: Its roots and fruit. HortTechnology 11:358-
361.
Williams, J.D., D.C. Fare, C.H. Gilliam, G.J. Keever, H.G., Ponder, and J.T. Owen. 1993.
Shade Trees for the Southeastern States: An Auburn Evaluation. Brown Printing,
Montgomery, AL.
Winter, N., K. Hood, and D. Tatum. 2001. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. Vol 46: 550-551.
33
CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF EXISTING STATE PLANT SELECTION/INRODUCTION
PROGRAMS
Abstract
Many plant selection/introduction programs have been established in the United States
to select and market plants to the general public. Plant promotion programs have many
differences in the way they are structured. The Alabama Nursery and Landscape
Association has expressed interest in creating a plant selection/introduction program due
to potential positive results including increasing sales for Alabama growers and retailer
garden centers, and helping consumers choose suitable plants for Alabama. Previous
research has shown that several programs have been successful for growers and retailers.
Texas Superstar
?
reported a 5000% increase in sales and a 6000% increase in gross sales
of VIP petunia (Petunia violacea) in 1999 following promotion efforts. The Oklahoma
Proven program reported a 117% increase in sales of their promoted plants. However, no
research has been conducted on the structure and operation of various plant
selection/introduction programs. To understand how plant promotion programs operate,
an online survey was developed and sent to seventeen operational programs across the
U.S. Some of the survey questions included how the program operates, number of people
involved, and how plants are selected and marketed to the public. Thirteen of seventeen
programs responded to the survey resulting in a 76% response rate. Most respondents
34
reported that a collaboration of organizations started their program with the majority
saying a university was involved in the creation of the program and over half reported
that their program was at least six years old. When comparing their plant selection
processes, 61% reported conducting plant trials as part of their plant selection process
while 39% reported they did not conduct plant trials. Over 69% reported funding as an
issue when developing plant promotion programs. Most plant promotion programs spend
over 60% of their money on personnel. To help with sustainability, 39% of respondents
reported generating a revenue stream for the program, 53% reported not generating
revenue, and 8% were not sure. However, 69% of respondents reported the program has
had a positive economic impact on the industry while only 31% were unsure. The results
of this survey will be used to evaluate the potential of plant selection/introduction
programs for Alabama and other states.
Index words: marketing, plant promotion, program structure
Introduction
Plant selection programs across the nation have had varying degrees of success.
Programs in Oklahoma and Texas have reported significant increases in plant sales while
some programs are no longer in existence for various reasons such as losing trial space
and the program director retiring (Anella et al., 2001; Mackay et al., 2001, J.C. Smeller,
personal communication; D. Hensley, personal communication). Oklahoma Proven
reported increased sales ranging from 26% to 228% for 1999?s selected plants compared
to sales from the pervious year (Anella et al., 2001). Two committees exist within the
Oklahoma Program: the advisory committee and the executive committee. The advisory
35
committee contains a broad range of professionals to recommend plants. The executive
committee contains the management team, representatives from industry, and members
from the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture at Oklahoma State
University. The management team includes the director, plant evaluation coordinator,
and marketing coordinator. The executive committee makes the final decision about
plant selections.
At the beginning of the Oklahoma Proven program, no evaluation reports from trials
were available so selections were made based on recommendations from the advisory
committee. Members of the Oklahoma Nursery and Landscape Association (ONLA) and
Oklahoma Greenhouse Growers Association (OGGA) voted on the recommendations.
Now evaluation reports are available, and selections are made from plant evaluations.
The Oklahoma Proven program is funded by cash donations, grants, sale of pot stakes
and hang tags, and the support of Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, ONLA, and
OGGA. Oklahoma Proven markets plant selections directly to consumers through point-
of-purchase materials and traditional media outlets with features on television,
newspapers, and in one national publication. One recurring obstacle the Oklahoma
Proven program faces is the decision to introduce new and underused plants of limited
availability or established plants with supply in large numbers (Anella et al., 2001;
Oklahoma Proven, 2007).
The Coordinated Educational and Marketing Assistance Program (CEMAP) selects
Texas SuperStar
?
plants. CEMAP consists of two boards: an executive board and an
industry advisory board. The executive board contains eight university personnel from
36
extension, research and teaching, and two administrative personnel. The industry
advisory board contains approximately 50 members from the Texas ornamentals industry.
The first step in the process is for university personnel and industry leaders to identify
potential plants and evaluate these plants with plant trials throughout the state. Growers
are notified three to four years before promotion so they can produce adequate supply.
Retailers are informed about selected plants and which growers have the selected plants
in the fall before the next year?s promotion. CEMAP uses newspapers, magazines, radio,
and television to promote selected plants. CEMAP also uses a trademarked logo to
provide some financial support back to the program (Mackay et al., 2001; Texas
Superstar, 2007).
Variation occurs throughout the programs even in their names; some are labeled as a
promotion, selection, introduction, evaluation, and/or marketing programs. For states,
like Alabama, considering developing a program, it can be difficult to know how to
establish a program and the best management practices. Since little to no research has
been completed on various plant promotion programs, a survey was developed to
determine the following:
? how the programs were created
? how many people are directly involved
? the committee structure each program uses
? each program?s nomination process
? the criteria for selection of plants
? the number of plants chosen each year
37
? the economic response to the programs
? growers and retailers participation
? the marketing strategies used by programs
? the overall operation of the program.
Results of this survey will be used in the potential development of future plant
selection/introduction programs.
Materials and Method:
Through the National Arboretum website (National Arboretum, 2007), fourteen state
and regional plant selection and recommendation programs were identified. The fourteen
programs were New England?s The Cary Award, Pennsylvania?s Gold Medal Plants
Program, Georgia Gold Medal Plants, Florida?s Plants of the Year, Kentucky?s Theodore
Klein Pant Award, Nebraska?s GreatPlants
?
-Plants of the Year, Arkansas Select,
Mississippi Medallion, Oklahoma Proven Selection, Texas Superstar
?
Plants, Colorado?s
Plant Select
?
, Utah?s Choice, and Washington?s Great Plant Picks. Additional plant
recognition programs were found through scientific journal articles, internet searches, and
links from other plant promotion programs. The other programs were Pride of Kansas,
Kansas?s PrairieStar Flowers, Chicagoland Grows
?
, and Ohio Plant Selection. The
majority of the plant recognition programs have websites which list information about the
program and contact information. Some websites contain old information, but all were
included in the survey sample to determine which programs were still active, but had not
updated their website.
38
The programs? websites, scientific articles, and online articles had varying degrees of
information listed. The information or lack of information about each program helped
produce many of the survey questions. Most websites listed a program director however,
for the few that did not list a director, an email was sent on May 31, 2007 (Appendix A)
to a person listed on the website as having an affiliation with the program. On June 4,
2007, an informational pre-contact email (Appendix A) was sent to all known program
directors explaining the purpose of the upcoming survey and how results would be used.
On June 21, 2007, an email containing a link to an online survey through
www.surveymonkey.com was sent to all known existing programs (Appendix A).
Upon opening the survey link, respondents were taken to the introduction page of the
online survey (Appendix B). The introduction page explained the survey and invited
participation. If the person consented, they clicked a button and were taken to the first
page of the survey (Appendix B). Respondents were asked a variety of questions about
program structure, nomination and selection process, funding, marketing, and program
advertising (Appendix C). The original deadline for response was set for July 15, 2007.
An email expressing appreciation for participation was sent to respondents.
Due to initial low response, the survey deadline was extended to July 27, 2007.
Weekly reminders were sent to each program that had not responded (Appendix A).
While the sample in this survey appears to be small, seventeen programs being surveyed,
this does include all the existing programs in the U.S. To help increase response rate
several of Dillman?s principles were followed including: pre-contact email,
39
personalization of each email sent to survey sample, survey was kept as short as possible,
and the survey was online making it easier to respond (Dillman, 2007).
After the survey closed, the survey data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet
(Microsoft, 2007) and uploaded into SPSS 16.1 (SPSS, 2007). In SPSS, each variable
was labeled and given a value so frequencies and correlations could be calculated.
Results and Discussion
During the survey process, personnel familiar with two programs responded saying
they were no longer functioning. Arkansas Select ended because the program director
retired and no one else was able to take the responsibility (D. Hensley, personal
communication). Pennsylvania Gardener Select ended because central trial space on
campus was lost due to a new direction in research and extension (J. Sellmer, personal
communication). After the survey was closed, a total of 13 programs had responded to
the survey resulting in a 76% response rate.
When respondents were asked about origin of the plant selection program 53.8% said
university, 46.2% said state association, 38.5% said industry, and 38.5% said other which
include botanical garden, non-profit association, and state arboreta. Official setup time
for the programs varied: 38.5% said 1-6 months, 7.7% said 7-12 months, 30.8% said 13-
18 months, and 23.1% said more than 18 months. Many issues arose during the setup
phase for the programs including funding for 69.2%, industry support for 53.8%, program
support for 46.2%, and personnel for 30.8%. Seven percent said other issues arose
involving different trial locations, doing research on recommended plants, and logistical
issues. When developing the program, 61.5% were modeled after another program
40
already in existence including Texas Superstar
?
, Georgia Gold Medal, Pennsylvania?s
Gold Medal Program, and Nebraska?s GreatPlants
?
.
Each plant recognition program surveyed spends their money in different ways. When
asked to choose the three most expensive aspects of the program, 61.5% said personnel,
46.2% said advertising, 38.5% said other, 30.8% said promotion tags, 30.8% said travel,
23.1% said maintenance of plots, and 0% said diagnostics/analyses. Most plant
promotion programs were not financially self-sustaining, 53.8% did not generate a
revenue stream, 38.5% generated a revenue stream, and 7.7% were not sure. Of the
programs that did generate a revenue stream only two were enough to sustain the
program. Fifteen percent of plant promotion programs found granting agencies,
including industry, state department of agriculture, extension, and various grants, to be
supportive.
The majority of plant recognition programs were six years old or older, with none of
the programs less than three years old. One program was 3-5 years old, 61.5% of the
programs were 6-10 years old, 15.4% were 11-15 years old and 15.4% were over 15
years old. Each plant promotion program varied in size. Over 92% of the programs have
20 or fewer people directly involved with the program while only one program has over
25 people directly involved with the program.
The selection and nomination processes used by the programs vary greatly. Nearly
70% use committees to nominate plants. The programs select all of the nomination
committee members. The nomination committees have a variety of members and most
included nursery/greenhouse growers, landscapers, university faculty, extension
41
personnel, and botanical garden staff (Table 1). Nomination committees meet at different
times and in different ways: 11.1% meet 0 times a year, 66.7% meet in person 1-2 times a
year, 11.1% meet 3-4 times, and 11.1% meet 5-6 times. Of the programs that have a
nomination committee, 28.6 % meet through email 1-2 times a year and 71.4% meet
through email 3-4 times a year. For programs that do not use committees to nominate
plants, most allow anyone, university faculty, nursery/greenhouse growers, extension
personnel, and botanical garden staff to nominate plants for consideration (Table 1).
To select winning plants, 69.2% use selection committees which are selected by the
program. Most selection committees include university faculty, nursery/greenhouse
growers, extension personnel, landscapers, and botanical garden staff (Table 1). When
asked how the selection committees meet, in person and/or by email, 77.8% meet 1-2
times a year in person, 11.1% meet 3-4 times a year, and 11.1% meet 5-6 times a year;
28.6% meet 1-2 times a year through email, 42.9% meet 3-4 times a year, and 28.6%
meet over 6 times a year. One program meets 1-2 times a year through conference calls.
Programs that do not use a selection committee for plant selection, use other methods to
select winning plants including association members voting by ballot, research trial
results, and a four-person board. Individuals or committees choose the winning plants
through group discussions (50%), a judging form (25%), and other ways (25%) including
trial results.
When asked about the criteria for selecting winning plants, 84.6% cited ease of
maintenance, 76.9% said pest and disease resistance, 76.9% said consumer appeal, 61.5%
said ease of propagation, and 61.5% said other including unique to industry, hardiness,
42
multiple seasons of interest, plant vigor, ?floriferousness?, availability in the trade, non-
invasive, underused, and heat and drought tolerance. When asked about the type and
number of plants evaluated, programs reported the most popular plants were perennials,
trees, and shrubs (Table 2). Shrubs were always selected by 53.8% of the programs,
perennials were always selected by 46.2% of the programs, and trees were always
selected by 46.2%. Programs do not always select the same number of plants every year;
61.5% only choose one or two plants for each category with an entry and 38.5% select
the number of plants based on the number of entries or nominations that for year. As part
of the selection process, some programs include plant trials to help select proven plants.
Nearly 62% include plant trials while the remaining 38% do not. The number of years
trialed depends on the plant (Table 3). Herbaceous plant materials like annuals and
perennials are usually trialed two to five years while woody plant material is usually
trialed over 10 years.
Programs face different challenges depending on support they receive. When asked to
select all areas that were most challenging, 46.2% selected grower support/acceptance,
38.5% selected retailer support/acceptance, 38.5% selected consumer awareness, 30.8%
selected plant selections, 15.4% selected plant nominations, 15.4% selected committee
member selection, and 23.1% selected other. These other responses included having
enough good plant material in supply to satisfy the demand generated, purity of plant
material, and selection and promotion completed in a timely way. Getting enough
support, whether funding or industry acceptance, is a problem for programs from the
start.
43
The majority of programs have experienced a positive economic response; 69.2% said
they had seen increased sales of selected plant material while the remaining 30.8% were
not sure. Increases in sales have been reported by growers and retailers with nearly 54%
of respondents saying growers had reported increases. The programs were not sure of the
exact increase but for the programs that did know increases ranged from 10%-50%.
Sixty-one percent said retailer had reported increases, which ranged from 10%-80%.
As for program marketing, 92.3% said they had directly contacted retailers and
growers to make them aware of the plant selection program. The number of retail garden
centers marketing the program varied: 46.2% had 0-20 garden centers involved, 7.7% had
21-40 garden centers, 23.1% had 41-60 garden centers, 0% had 61-80 or 81-100 garden
centers, and 23.1% had over 100 garden centers. Numbers are more evenly distributed
for growers involved with the programs: 38.5% had 0-20, 23.1% had 21-40, 7.7% had
41-60, 7.7% had 61-80, 0% had 81-100, and 23.1% had over 100 growers. Over 92% of
plant selection programs offer promotional items to retailers. Promotional items include
signs (91.7%), brochures/flyers (77.8%), pot tag/labels (70.0%), advertisement material
(62.5%), bookmarks (12.5%), and other (20%) including websites. Some programs
charge for items while some offer them at no cost. The most popular and used
promotional item is signs at 50.0% and brochures/flyers at 33.3%. Only 8.3% said pot
tags or general advertisement materials.
Over 92% of the programs market directly to consumers. The programs market using
websites (91.7%), newspaper articles (75.0%), magazine articles (66.7%), television
spots (33.3%), direct mail (16.7%), and other (58.3%) which includes farmer?s markets,
44
garden fairs, retail garden shows, garden clubs, radio, consumer presentations,
community programs, county extension, master gardeners, and gardening events.
At the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity make any additional
comments. Comments fell into the general categories of struggle for recognition, getting
industry to participate and be involved, raising consumer awareness, cost of operation,
plant selection process, and praise for the program.
Correlations
Correlations were run in SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, 2007) and significant relationships were
found. Landscapers on the nominating committee and positive economic response had a
very strong correlation (Table 4). Landscapers are a large group that account for putting
many value added plants in the landscape and if they are involved in a plant selection
program, they would know about the selected plants. There may be a link between
landscaper being involved with the program and landscapers using selected plants in their
business, which would help increase the economic response. Other positive correlations
including: home gardeners and master gardeners on committees and revenue generation
for the programs (Table 5). Like landscapers, both home gardeners and master gardeners
use plants and they may be more likely to use selected plants if involved with the
program. Also landscapers, home gardeners, and master gardeners could share positive
experiences with others. Programs selecting trees and perennials and program generating
revenue have a positive relationship indicating perennials and trees will produce sales
(Table 6). Positive correlations with weaker r-values include university faculty,
extension personnel, botanical garden staff, and growers nominating plants when
45
program do not have nomination committees and program having a positive economic
response (Table 6).
Not all correlations were positive, some surprising strong negative correlations were
found including university faculty on the nomination committee and the number of
growers marketing the program and anyone nominating plans and the program generating
revenue (Table 4). Other surprising negative correlations include involving university
faculty and extension personnel on the nominating committee and the number of growers
marketing the program (Tables 4 & 5). However, the relationship was positive when
university faculty and extension personnel nominated plants without being on a
committee. The negative relationships between university faculty, extension personnel,
and growers are unexpected; however, a lack of communication between university
faculty and growers could explain this relationship. Programs with university faculty
involved need to find ways to strengthen the relationship by incorporating growers in the
program.
Also surprising was the negative relationship between university faculty, growers,
botanical garden staff, and extension nominating plants when programs do not have a
nomination committee and revenue generation for the program (Table 7). Revenue
generation does not measure success of the program but it does provide financial support
to programs. The negative correlation between programs conducting plant trials and
programs having a positive economic response was also unexpected. Promoting plants
that have been tested and proven would appear to be a great selling point and lead to
more sales. However, the negative correlation between the two variables indicates
46
otherwise. This could be viewed as good because programs and future programs are not
required to include plant trials to be successful.
Many of the negative correlations seem unexpected; however, with such a small
number of respondents it is hard to measure the true validity of these correlations and so
it may be better to look at individual programs separately rather than together as a whole.
The positive correlations do suggest programs should include groups that use plants like
landscapers, master gardeners, and home gardeners as well as university faculty,
extension personnel, botanical garden staff, and growers in the plant nomination and
selection process.
Survey results show both similarities and differences in the existing plant
selection/introduction programs. Data indicates there is no one thing to guarantee a
successful program but the survey generated some guidelines a program should meet in
order to be successful including industry support, adequate supply of quality plant
selections, and effective marketing campaigns. The survey determined perennials, shrubs,
and trees were selected most often and plant trials are not needed to be successful.
However, all lines of communication should be strong with all involved and with growers
and retailers. These survey results can be used to explore different options in developing
plant selection/introduction programs for the state of Alabama as well as other states.
Also, these results can be used to improve existing programs by comparing program
structure and marketing techniques.
47
Literature Cited
Anella, L.B., M.A. Schnelle, and D.M. Maronek. 2001. Oklahoma Proven: A plant
evaluation and marketing program. HortTechnology 11: 381-384.
Dillman, D.A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailed Design Method. 2
nd
ed. New
Jersery: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mackay, W.A., S.W. George, T.D. Davis, M.A. Arnold, R.D. Lineberger, J.M. Parson,
L.A. Stein, and G.G. Grant. 2001. Texas Superstar and the Coordinated
Educational And Marketing Assistance Program (CEMAP): How we operate.
HortTechnology 11:389-391.
Microsoft Excel
?
. 2007. Microsoft Excel
?
07 for Windows
?
. Microsoft Corporation,
Inc., Redmond, WA.
National Arboretum. 2007. 15 January 2007. .
Oklahoma Proven. 2007. Oklahoma Proven superior plants recommended for
Oklahoma. 10 Feb. 2007. .
SPSS Inc. 2007. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, Illinois.
Texas Superstars. 2006. Texas Superstars. 10 Feb. 2007.
.
48
Table 1. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs? plant
nomination committee.
Individuals Proportion of
involved respondents (%)
z
Nursery/greenhouse growers 88.9
Landscapers 77.8
University faculty 77.8
Extension personnel 66.7
Botanical garden staff 66.7
Homeowners/gardeners 33.3
Master gardeners 22.2
Sod growers 0.0
Other 33.3
z
Data based on 13 respondents from a survey of existing plant selection/introduction
programs in 2007.
49
Table 2. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs? nomination
process where there is no nomination committee involved.
Individuals Proportion of
involved respondents (%)
z
Anyone 75.0
Nursery/greenhouse growers 50.0
Landscapers 25.0
University faculty 50.0
Botanical garden staff 50.0
Extension personnel 50.0
Master gardeners 25.0
Sod growers 0.0
Other 75.0
z
Data based on 13 respondents from a survey of existing plant selection/introduction
programs in 2007.
50
Table 3. Individuals or groups involved in existing plant selection programs? selection
committee.
Individuals on the plant Proportion of
nomination committee respondents (%)
z
Nursery/greenhouse growers 77.8
Landscapers 77.8
University faculty 88.9
Botanical garden staff 66.7
Extension personnel 77.8
Homeowners/gardeners 11.1
Master gardeners 33.3
Sod growers 0.0
Other 33.3
z
Data based on 13 respondents from a survey of existing plant selection/introduction
programs in 2007.
51
Table 4. The type of plants selected and frequency of selection by existing plant
selection/introduction programs. _____________________________
Proportion of respondents (%)
z
___
Plant category Always Sometimes Never
Perennial 46.2 46.2 7.7
Tree 46.2 46.2 7.7
Shrub 53.8 30.8 15.4
Vine 7.7 61.5 30.8
Annual 15.4 46.2 38.5
Grass 7.7 38.5 53.8
Fruit 0.0 7.7 92.3
Vegetable 0.0 15.4 84.6
Other 0.0 15.4 84.6
z
Data based on 13 respondents from a survey of existing plant selection/introduction
programs in 2007.
52
Table 5. Length of existing plant selection/introduction programs? plant trials for each
plant category as part of the plant selection process.______________________
Years (%)
z
Plant category N/A 1 2 3-5 6-10 >10
Tree 46.2 0.0 0.0 15.4 7.7 30.8
Shrub 53.8 0.0 0.0 23.1 15.4 7.7
Perennial 38.5 0.0 15.4 38.5 7.7 0.0
Vine 76.9 0.0 0.0 15.4 7.7 0.0
Annual 61.5 0.0 15.4 23.1 0.0 0.0
Grass 69.2 0.0 0.0 23.1 7.7 0.0
Fruit 92.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0
Vegetable 76.9 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 92.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0
z
Data based on 13 respondents from a survey of existing plant selection/introduction
programs in 2007.
53
Table 6. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a high positive or
negative Pearson?s correlation
*
. ___________________
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Landscapers on nominating committee
& programs having a positive economic response 9 1.000 0.000
Anyone nominating plant
& programs generating revenue 13 -1.000 0.000
University faculty on nominating committee
& number of growers marketing the program 13 -0.980 0.000
*
Very high correlations range 1.0 to 0.9 or -1.0 to -0.9.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
54
Table 7. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a high positive or
negative Pearson?s correlation
*
.
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Home gardeners on selection committee
& programs generating revenue 9 0.884 0.002
Home gardeners on nominating committee
& programs generating revenue 9 0.707 0.033
Master gardeners on selection committee
& programs generating revenue 9 0.707 0.033
Extension personnel on nomination committee
& number of growers marketing the programs 9 -0.707 0.033
*
High correlations range 0.9 to 0.7 or -0.9 to -0.7.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
55
Table 8. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a moderate positive
Pearson?s correlation
*
.
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Botanical garden staff nominating plants
& positive economic response 4 0.577 0.423
Extension personnel nominating plants
& positive economic response 4 0.577 0.423
University faculty nominating plants
& positive economic response 4 0.577 0.423
Program generating revenue
& selecting perennials 13 0.522 0.067
Programs generating revenue
& selecting trees 13 0.522 0.067
Positive economic response
& marketing using magazine articles 12 0.500 0.098
*
Moderate correlations range 0.7 to 0.5.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
56
Table 9. Survey items from the plant selection program survey with a moderate negative
Pearson?s correlation
*
.
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Program originating at a university
& number of growers marketing the program 13 -0.658 0.015
Program originating at industry
& consumer awareness being a challenge 13 -0.625 0.022
Program generating revenue
& number of retailers marketing the program 13 -0.604 0.029
Growers nominating plants
& programs generating revenue 4 -0.577 0.423
University faculty nominating plants
& programs generating revenue 4 -0.577 0.423
Extension personnel nominating plants
& programs generating revenue 4 -0.577 0.423
Botanical garden staff
& programs generating revenue 4 -0.577 0.423
Programs conducting plant trials
& positive economic response 13 -0.501 0.081
*
Moderate correlations range -0.7 to -0.5.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
57
CHAPTER III
A STATE SURVEY OF GROWERS AND RETAILERS TO DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ALABAMA PLANT SELECTION/ INTRODUCTION
PROGRAM
Additional index words. survey, growers, retailers, and program involvement
Abstract
There are many state plant selection or introduction programs and the green industry is
involved in some way in every program; however, the level of involvement varies by
program. Some programs like Texas Superstars
?
have industry members very involved
throughout the plant selection process, from nominating plants to choosing final plant
selections. Others programs like Great Plant Picks and Chicagoland Grows
?
let selected
individuals or groups nominate and choose final plant selections. Since the Alabama
Nursery and Landscape Association has expressed interest in creating a plant selection
program, a survey was developed to determine the overall opinion of Alabama growers
and retailers of a potential plant selection program for the state of Alabama. Survey
questions inquired if respondents were aware of state ornamental plant selection
programs, what level of involvement they would like to have, if the program should
include plant trials, who should nominate plants, and if they thought the potential
program could help their business. Of 173 growers and retailers contacted, 57 responded
58
to the survey, resulting in 32% response rate. Over 80% were aware of state plant
selection programs, however only 21% knew any information about such programs.
Seventy percent thought a selection program could help their business and nearly 95%
wanted to have some level of involvement in the potential program. When asked about
program setup, 94% wanted to include plant trials. Sixty-nine percent wanted to let
anyone in the green industry nominate plants while 26% said only people chosen to serve
on a plant nominating committee. Survey results indicate there is potential for a plant
selection program for Alabama due to the high percentages wanting involvement in the
program and think a plant selection program would help their business.
Introduction
Many state plant selection/introduction programs have been established over the past
fifteen years (Stegelin et al., 2001); however, there has been very little research on these
programs. What little has been published shows some programs have been very
successful at promoting selected plants and increasing sales of the selected plants (Anella
et al., 2001; Mackay et al., 2001). From the plant selection program survey, it is known
that program support is crucial to survival and success of the programs (E.D. Harris,
unpublished data). Even with support, some programs still struggle. Some programs
have not been successful, having been discontinued due to various reasons including a
loss of trial space on campus (J. Sellmer, personal communication), not replacing the
retired program director (D. Hensley, personal communication), and not having the mass
media capabilities to efficiently advertise the program (A.D. Owing, personal
communication).
59
Support from different areas is needed to help programs survive and be successful.
Most programs have many sponsors involved with the programs which include
universities, professional green associations, extension, botanical gardens, and/or state
arboreta. Level of involvement varies by program and industry is usually most involved.
The Texas Superstar
?
program is a successful plant selection program and members of
the Texas Green Industry have an important part in the program, which has contributed to
its success (Mackey et al., 2001). The program has an industry advisory board that is
made up of 50 members from the Texas ornamental industry, allowing members from the
industry to voice their opinion. Also industry is involved with the plant evaluation
process.
Industry is also directly involved with the Oklahoma Proven Program (Anella et al.,
2001). Two committees exist to aid the program director, plant evaluation coordinator,
and marketing coordinator. These two committees are the advisory committee and the
executive committee. Both committees have representatives from the wholesale and
retail industries. The advisory committee aides the management team by making plant
recommendations and the executive committee assists with final plant selections. With
industry having direct involvement, this allows green industry members to share
knowledge and personal experience as well as voice their opinions.
The Georgia Gold Medal, Florida?s Plants of the Year, Great Plants
?
, Pride of
Kansas, and Utah?s Choice all let growers or members of a professional green industry
organization nominate plants while a committee makes final plant selections (Florida
Plants of the Years, 2008; Georgia Gold Medal, 2008; Great Plants, 2008; Pride of
60
Kansas, 2008; Utah?s Choice, 2008). Kentucky?s Theodore Kline Plant Award,
Chicagoland Grows
?
, and Great Plant Picks all have selected individuals or groups from
industry make both plant nominations and selections (Chicagoland Grows, 2008; Great
Plant Picks, 2008; Kentucky).
Industry plays a role in most programs however how big the role is and the level of
direct involvement depends on the program. If there is a chance for a program to be
successful, then industry must support the program and be willing to be involved with the
program. Since the Alabama Nursery and Landscape Association has expressed interest
in a state plant selection program, a survey was developed in order to determine the
opinion of Alabama growers and retailers of a potential plant selection or introduction
program for the state of Alabama. The objectives of the survey were to determine if
Alabama growers and retailers are interested in a plant selection program, what kind of
involvement they would like to have in the potential program, and how the potential
program should be setup. The survey inquired about their business, what level of
involvement they would like to have, if they have sold or grow for any other plant
selection programs, and if they are familiar with plant selection programs, and the plant
selection process.
Materials and Methods
The population surveyed was made up of grower and retailer members of the Alabama
Nursery and Landscape (ALNLA) located in Alabama. The current membership list was
obtained from the ALNLA and was narrowed to just growers and retailers located in the
state of Alabama with the help of Mr. James Harwell, Executive Director of ALNLA.
61
Also, growers and retailers that were members of the Greater Birmingham Association of
Landscape Professionals (GBALP) were added to the list; most were members of
ALNLA and already included. The total number of growers and retailers in the sample
was 173.
A thirty-three question paper survey was developed to determine overall opinion of a
potential plant selection or introduction program for Alabama and the level of
involvement Alabama growers and retailers would like to have in this potential program
(Appendix D). The surveys were mailed in ALNLA envelopes and contained two cover
letters, the survey, and a pre-stamped envelope for the survey to be returned. The first
cover letter was from Mr. James Harwell stating ALNLA?s support for the survey and
asking for responses (Appendix E). The next cover letter explained the purpose of the
survey, asked for participation and to mail the survey back by March 31, 2008 (Appendix
E). The survey was also set up online through www.surveymonkey.com, giving
respondents the option of taking the survey online. The cover letter stated the web
address where the survey was located. Surveys were mailed on March 15, 2008. No
reminder or thank you post cards were sent due to the short time period of the survey.
Many of Dillman?s principles were followed to increase response rate for the survey
including: enclosing a pre-stamped envelope, giving respondents the option to take the
survey online, and giving a short time period to return the surveys (Dillman, 2007). After
the survey was closed, survey data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft,
2007) and uploaded into SPSS 16.1 (SPSS, 2007). Each variable was labeled and given a
value so frequencies and correlations could be calculated.
62
Results and Discussion
After the survey was closed, 55 mail surveys had been returned and two internet
surveys had been completed for a total of 57 respondents resulting in 32.9% response
rate. Over 80% were aware some states have ornamental plant selection/introduction
program, only 19.3% did not know about such programs. However, only 21.4% reported
knowing any information about plant selection programs. Some respondents were
familiar with other commercial marketing programs by participating in those programs.
Over 28% reported growing and/or selling for any plant selection programs and these
programs included Endless Summer Hydrangea, Knock Out Rose, Athens Select, and
Alabama Grown (a regional program sponsored by a local nursery).
When asked about what level of involvement they, as growers and retailers would like
to have, 94.7% said they would like some involvement. The levels of involvement
varied, 86.0% said growing and/or selling selected plants, 40.4% said nominating
potential plants, 31.6% said marketing and/or advertising selected plants, and 29.8% said
serving on a plant selection committee. Only 5.3% of respondent said they would like no
involvement in the program. These high percentages indicate potential for an Alabama
plant promotion program. The 86% wanting to grow and/or sell selected plants was
good; however, the percentage wanting to market and advertise selected plants needs to
be higher. If the program is created, effective marketing campaigns will need to be
developed where growers and retailers are involved.
When asked who should nominate potential plants, 69.6% said anyone in the green
industry, 26.8% said only people chosen to serve on a plant nominating committee, 5.4%
63
said anyone, and 3.6% said other. When asked about the plant selection process, 94.7%
said nominated plants should be trialed before they are selected as award winning plants,
and 5.3% preferred the plants not to be trialed. Even though respondents agreed on
including plant trials, they did not all agree on who should conduct the plant trials.
Nearly 67% said growers should conduct the plant trials, 56.4% said in-state university
faculty/departments should, 40.0% said botanical/public/private garden should, 34.5%
said Alabama Cooperative Extension System should trial the plants, and 5.5% selected
other including combinations of all the above. It is evident growers and retailers want
plant trials to be included and the best solution could be it may be a combination of
growers, a university, gardens, and extension personnel conducting plant trials.
Most reported that a plant selection program would be helpful to their business, 70.2%
said they thought it would help, 28.1% were not sure, and only 1.8% did not think it
would help. When retailers were asked if they would be willing to display advertisement
material for the potential program in their store, 79.2% said yes, 12.5% said no, and 8.3%
said not sure.
Business Demographics
Most of the plants shipped from Alabama growers remain in state. Over 68% ship
plants in state, 61.1% ship out-of-state, 0% ship out of the country, and 27.8% said N/A
which accounts for retailers and retail growers that do not ship plants. The origin of
plants sold varies: 76.4% come from respondent?s own nursery/greenhouse, 60.0% come
from in-state growers, 50.9% come from out-of-state growers, and 3.6% come from out
of the country. For the respondents that grow their own plants, 71.4% said plants come
64
from cuttings, 67.3% from purchased plugs, 65.3% from containers to shift up, 51.0%
from seeds, and 16.3% from grafts/buds.
Fourteen percent reported having average gross sales for green goods under $100,000,
25.0% said $100,000-250,000, 25.0% said $250,000-500,000, 3.6% said $500,000-
750,000, 1.8% said $750,000-1,000,000, and 30.4% said over $1,000,000. Respondents
were scattered across the state in little towns and big cities according to the population
where they were located; 28.8% were 0-9,000, 5.8% were 9,000-17,000, 13.5% are
17,000-29,000, 7.7% was 29,000-49,000, 9.6% was 49,000-88,000, 23.1% was 88,000-
663,000, and 9.6% was over 663,000. To determine the size of their operation,
businesses were asked about part time and full time employees. Over 63% had 0-10 part
time employees, 10.9% had 11-25, 3.6% had over 25, and 21.8% said N/A. Over 69%
had 0-10 full time employees, 14.3% had 11-25, 10.7% had over 25, and 5.4% said N/A.
Growers reported growing a variety of plants including shrubs, perennials, trees, annuals,
propagative materials, herbs, vegetable plants, fruit bearing plants, Christmas trees, and
bare root nursery stock (Table 1). Popular plants sold to retail consumers were shrubs,
perennials, annuals, trees, vegetable plants, and fruit bearing plants (Table 1).
The breakdown of the survey respondents included wholesale growers, retail garden
centers, retail growers, and contract growers (Table 2). Their operations consisted of
greenhouses, field production/containers, retail, propagation material, bare root nursery
stock, and other (Table 2). All were members of at least one professional Green Industry
organization including Alabama Nursery and Landscape Association (100%), Southern
Nurserymen Association (40.7%), Greater Birmingham Association of Landscape
65
Professionals (13.0%), International Plant Propagators Society (11.1%), Tennessee
Nursery Landscape Association (11.1%), and other (19.6%) organizations including
South Alabama Nurseryman?s Association, Alabama Farmers Federation, and Southern
Christmas Tree Association.
Correlations
After analysis in SPSS (SPSS, 2007), several significant correlations were found.
Being a retail operation and selling trees, annuals, perennials, vegetables, and herbs to
retail consumers all had high correlations (Table 3). There were also strong relationships
between retail operation and selling plants from in state growers, and retail garden center
and selling plants from in state growers (Table 4). Concern had arisen from comments on
the plant selection program survey on the difficulty of getting in state retailers to buy
from in state growers (E.D. Harris, unpublished data). However, it appears Alabama
retailers are buying most of their plants from in state growers.
Other positive relationships with weaker r-values include selling plants from in state
growers and selling annuals, perennials, trees, shrubs, and vegetable to retail consumers
(Table 4). Also being a wholesale grower and shipping plants in state (Table 4).
Alabama growers are growing annuals, perennials, trees, shrubs, and vegetables and
shipping them to in state retailers to sell to retail consumers. Plants sold to retail
consumers coming from out of state growers are annuals, perennials, trees, and fruit
bearing plants (Table 4). However, the correlation is stronger for annuals, perennials, and
trees coming from in state growers. This could be investigated more closely to determine
the amount of plants staying in state and leaving the state, as well as those imported.
66
For a program to be successful retailers must be willing to display advertisements in
their store and the moderate positive correlations between retail garden centers or retail
operations and willingness to display advertisements indicate Alabama retailers are
willing. Since most program are sponsored by a green industry organization, members of
green organization appear to be an appropriate place to start when developing a potential
program and the positive correlation between being a professional green organization
member and wanting to have some involvement in the potential program confirms this
(Table 4).
Over 30% of growers and retailers contacted, responded to the survey. The majority
seemed positive and hopeful about the potential for an Alabama plant selection program
with 94% wanting to have some involvement in the program, 70% thinking the potential
program would help their business, and 79% of retailers willing to display advertisement
material in their retail store. Concerns had arisen about retailers buying from out of state;
however, there were strong correlations indicating retailers do buy from in state growers
and retailers do sell plants from in state growers. These survey results indicate there is a
potential for a plant selection program for Alabama.
67
Literature cited
Anella, L.B., M.A. Schnelle, and D.M. Maronek. 2001. Oklahoma Proven: A plant
evaluation and marketing program. HortTechnology 11:381-384.
Chicagoland Grows. 2008. Chicagoland Grows. 28 August 2008.
.
Dillman, D.A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailed Design Method. 2
nd
ed. New
Jersery: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Assn. 2008. Florida Plants of the Year. 28
August 2008. .
Great Plant Picks. 2008. Great Plant Picks. 28 August 2008.
.
Intermountain Native Plant Growers Assn. Utah?s Choice. 2008. Utah?s Choice. 28
August 2008. .
Kansas Nursery & Landscape Assn. 2008. Pride of Kansas. 28 August 2008.
.
Mackay, W.A., S.W. George, T.D. Davis, M.A. Arnold, R.D. Lineberger, J.M. Parson,
L.A. Stein, and G.G. Grant. 2001. Texas Superstar and the Coordinated
Educational and Marketing Assistance Program (CEMAP): How we operate.
HortTechnology 11:389-391.
Microsoft Excel
?
. 2007. Microsoft Excel
?
07 for Windows
?
. Microsoft Corporation,
Inc., Redmond, WA.
68
Nebraska State Arboretum. 2008. Great Plants. 28 August 2008.
.
SPSS Inc. 2007. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, Illinois.
Stegelin, F., S. Turner, and P. Knight. 2001. State plant promotion programs: Histories
and perspectives. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. Vol. 46:539-541.
Univ. of Georgia College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences. 2008. Georgia Gold
Medal Plants. 26 August 2008.
.
69
Table 1. The types of plants grown and sold by Alabama growers and retailers.
Proportion of respondents (%)
z
Plant category Grown Sold _
Perennial 56.0 46.3
Tree 54.0 44.4
Propagation material 40.0 9.3
Fruit bearing plant 14.0 25.9
Herb 20.0 31.5
Annual 42.0 46.3
Shrub 62.0 50.0
Christmas tree 3.0 14.8
Bare root nursery stock 2.0 5.6
Vegetable 20.0 31.5
Other 10.0 9.3
N/A 14.3 40.7
z
Data based on 57 respondents from a survey of Alabama growers and retailers in
2008.
70
Table 2. Types of businesses and operations for Alabama growers and retailers.
Business types Proportion of respondents (%)
z
_
Wholesale growers 66.7
Retail garden centers 42.1
Retail growers 29.8
Contract growers 12.3
Operation types
Greenhouse 64.3
Field production/containers 69.6
Retail 48.2
Propagation material 44.6
Bare root nursery stock 5.4
Other 8.9
z
Data based on 57 respondents from a survey of Alabama growers and retailers in
2008.
71
Table 3. Survey items from the Alabama grower and retailer survey with a moderate
positive or negative Pearson?s correlation
*
.
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Selling plants from in state growers
& selling annuals to retail consumers 52 0.682 0.000
Being a wholesale grower
& shipping plants in state 54 0.657 0.000
Selling plants from in state growers
& selling perennials to retail consumers 52 0.653 0.000
Average gross sales
& full time employees 56 0.650 0.000
Willing to display advertisements for the potential program
& being a retail operation 53 0.648 0.000
Willing to display advertisements for the potential program
& being a retail garden center 54 0.643 0.000
Selling plants from in state growers
& selling trees to retail consumers 52 0.624 0.000
Being a wholesale grower
& shipping plants out of state 54 0.604 0.000
Wanting involvement in the potential program
& being a member of a professional green industry org. 56 0.567 0.000
Selling plants from out of state growers
& selling fruit bearing plants to retail consumers 52 0.562 0.000
Selling plants from in state growers
& selling shrubs to retail consumers 52 0.553 0.000
Selling plants from in state growers
& selling vegetables to retail consumers 52 0.551 0.000
Selling plants from out of state growers
& selling perennials to retail consumer 52 0.548 0.000
Selling plants from out of state growers
& selling shrubs to retail consumers 52 0.514 0.000
Selling plant from out of state growers
& selling annuals to retail consumers 52 0.505 0.000
*
Moderate correlations range 0.7 to 0.5 or -0.7 to -0.5.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
72
Table 4. Survey items from the Alabama grower and retailer survey with a high positive
or negative Pearson?s correlation
*
.
Survey items n
z
r
y
p
w
Being a retail operation
& selling plants from in state growers 54 0.722 0.000
Being a retail garden center
& selling plants from in state growers 55 0.718 0.000
*
High correlation range 0.9 to 0.7 or -0.9 to -0.7.
z
Number of respondents.
y
Pearson?s r-value.
w
P-value.
73
CHAPTER IV
FINAL DISCUSSION
Many state plant selection/introduction programs have been established across the
nation to select and promote plants to consumers and increase sales for growers and
retailers. During this study, twenty existing and discontinued plant selection/introduction
programs were located and examined. The programs all have the same basic goals, but
with variability in how they are structured, operate, and select plants, as well as
variability in the level of involvement growers and retailers. Program differences make it
difficult for states interested in developing a program to determine the best way to
develop and structure a new program. This study was conducted to collect information to
aide states, such as Alabama, that are considering development of a plant selection
program.
States considering a plant selection program should know there are many ways a
program can be set up and no one thing guarantees success. From the existing program
survey, general guidelines were formed on how to begin a program. First, a state must
form a management committee to implement general guidelines. The committee must
decide who wants and needs to be sponsors and at what level of involvement sponsors
should have. The plant selection program survey revealed most programs are
partnerships between two or more organizations such as a university, state green
74
association, industry representatives, and/or botanical gardens. For Alabama, it may be
best to include the Alabama Nursery and Landscape Association, Auburn University, and
some public gardens located throughout the state if they are willing to be sponsors.
Having people from different areas involved is beneficial because support for the
program and responsibilities can be shared.
Program structure, committees and their responsibilities is another decision for the
management committee. This is linked to involvement because states must decide who
and how many will serve on what committees. Most selection programs have committees
to nominate and select plants. Correlations indicated programs should involve people that
will be using the selected plants like landscapers, master gardeners, and home gardeners.
If they are involved in selecting plants, they may be more likely to purchase selections as
consumers leading to a more successful program. Even though having university faculty
and extension personnel involved in the selection process produced negative correlation,
it may be best to include them to provide more perspective. An existing program
suggested setting term limits for committee members, to allow new members and ideas a
chance to rotate into the committee.
The next decision is selection criteria for plants, what type and number of plants to
select, and whether to include plant trials. Perennials, trees, shrubs, and annuals were the
most popular plants grown and sold in Alabama; they were also selected most often by
existing programs. These plants would be an appropriate starting point for an Alabama
program. Correlations indicate plant trials are not necessary for a program to be
successful. If the state program chooses to perform trials, should they be independent
75
plant trials or university sponsored? There are benefits to involving a university over
independent plant trials that would require more money. However, if pubic gardens are
involved and willing, they could serve as a trial and demonstration garden, similar to
Plant Select
?
. Individuals on the selection committee could go to garden for evaluation
and the garden could be a marketing tool promoting the program to garden visitors.
The state must develop a name, logo, marketing plan, and decide how financial
matters will be handled. Existing programs use different marketing techniques but most
offered marketing items to growers and retailers such as signs, pot tag/labels, and
brochures/flyers and also used newspaper articles, magazine articles, websites, and
garden shows to advertise to consumers. According to the program survey, the setup
process could take either 1-6 months or over 12 months. There was no correlation
indicating which time frame is most successful and may depend on the time it take to
implement guidelines and secure funding.
One very important aspect for potential programs is funding. The management
committee needs to secure adequate funding and support. This was listed as a problem
for many existing programs. Program personnel, marketing campaigns, promotion
materials, and travel were listed as top expenses for the existing programs and funding
can help supply these item for a program. Lack of funding will limit what a program can
do, how it can help the green industry, and can ultimately lead to a program?s
discontinuation. Existing programs generate revenue by royalties, university grants, sale
of plant tags, or through a trust/foundation. The majority of revenue generating programs
do so through royalties and sale of plant tags however, this research did not determine
76
which method is best. Money from university grants is guaranteed while money from
royalties, plant tag sales and trusts would vary. Many programs generate revenue but
only two programs, Chicagoland Grows
?
and Prairiestar Flowers, generate enough to
sustain themselves making outside funding unnecessary. Chicagoland Grows
?
generates
money through royalties and Prairiestar Flowers through trail fees and industry support.
The grower/retailer survey revealed an interest among Alabama growers and retailers
for an Alabama plant selection program; 95% said they would like to have some
involvement a selection program and the majority thought the program would be helpful
to their business. The majority of Alabama growers and retailers want to grow or sell the
selected plants; however, only 32% want to market the plants. An increase in desire to
market selected plants could result from explaining marketing expectations and most
retailers said they would be willing to display advertisement materials in their retail store.
Growers and retailers had strong opinions about the plant selection process. They
thought plant trials should be included and growers, a university, gardens, and/or the
extension system should conduct trials. However, the plant selection program survey
determined plant trials are not necessary for a successful program but it would help insure
quality plants are selected. Because the most popular plants grown and sold in Alabama
were shrubs, perennials, trees, and annuals this would be an appropriate starting point for
plants to promote. Some existing plant selection programs voiced concern about retailers
buying out of state plants; correlations indicate Alabama retailers are buying most plants
from in state growers.
77
In the future, this research should be continued by closely examining revenue
generating existing plant selection/introduction programs. The areas of concern are the
plant selection process, how plant trials and plant nominations are linked together, and
financial matters as to how much money is each area of the program. The plant selections
survey concluded personnel was the most expensive area but the survey did not inquire
on expense amount. This would provide a detailed model for Alabama and other
interested states. States could decide if they want to follow the examples set by previous
programs or develop new methods to run the program. Also, both existing and future
programs could benefit by collecting data every year to determine the sales increase of
selected plants and therefore program success as it progresses. For states considering a
program, it would be helpful to survey potential consumers of the program to determine
what they want, need, and if a plant selection program would be beneficial. Even though
there is more information to be gathered on these plant selection/introduction programs,
the research warrants the creation of a plant selection/introduction program for the state
of Alabama to benefit the green industry as well as consumers.
78
APPENDICES
79
APPENDIX A
Figure 1. The initial email sent to programs trying to determine program director.
I am trying to find the program director for the XYZ program. I looked on the website
and could not find a person listed. I would greatly appreciate if you could email the
person's contact information for the program.
Thanks,
Emily Harris
Master's Student
101 Funchess Hall
Auburn University
harried@auburn.edu
Figure 2. The pre-contact email sent to program directors.
Dr. XYZ
I am a graduate student in the Auburn University Horticulture Department and for part of
my thesis project I am looking at all the plant selection programs across the U.S. While
researching the background information on each of the programs, I came across your
name as the program director/contact person. If you are not the program director, please
email me the current program director?s contact info.
If you are the program director, then you do not have to email me back now. However, I
will be sending you another email with a link to an online survey through
surveymonkey.com. Thank you very much for your time; the information that you will
provide is vital to my research project.
Thanks again,
Emily Harris
Master?s Student
Auburn University
80
Figure 3. The email sent to program directors containing the survey link.
Mr, XYZ,
I am a graduate student in the Auburn University Horticulture Department and part of
research is looking at all the plant selection programs across the U.S. I have previously
sent you an email about two weeks ago when I was trying to locate the program director.
To get information about the each program, I have developed an online survey through
www.surveymonkey.com.
The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The answers you can
provide through the survey are vital to my research project. The link to the survey is
below.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kTOWY6DCUbpo9Te8QaYw7w_3d_3d
The last day the survey is going to open is Thursday, July 12, 2007.
Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, I greatly appreciate it!
Thanks,
Emily Harris
Master?s Student
Auburn University
Figure 4. The weekly reminder email sent to program directors.
I am a graduate student in the Auburn University Horticulture Department. About two
weeks I emailed several surveys to plant selection programs across the nation and as of
today I only have responses from seven of them. I hope you can find time to complete
the survey because I need more responses. The survey should take approximately 15
minutes to complete. The link to the survey is below.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kTOWY6DCUbpo9Te8QaYw7w_3d_3d
The survey will close this coming Monday, July 12!!
Thanks,
Emily Harris
Master's Student
Auburn University
81
APPENDIX B
Figure 1. The introduction page of the plant selection program survey.
The Horticulture Department at Auburn University is conducting a survey on state-based
plant selection programs. This survey is being sent to all the state-based plant selection
programs in the United States. In this survey you will be asked a few questions about
how your program was created and how it is currently organized. The questionnaire
should take approximately fifteen minutes to complete.
The results of this project will be used in the development of future plant selection
programs. With your participation, we hope to discover the best management practices
and overall organization for a plant selection program. If any questions do not apply to
your program, choose the N/A option.
Thank you so much for your time. I look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Emily Harris
Graduate Student
Auburn University
Figure 2. The first page of the online survey of the plant selection programs.
82
APPENDIX C
The Plant Selection Program Survey.
1. Where is the origin of your plant selection program? (Please check all that apply).
___Industry
___University
___State association
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2. What were the first actions/activities completed in order to begin your plant
selection program?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. How long did it take to officially setup the program?
___1-6 months
___7-12 months
___13-18 months
___>18 months
4. What issues arose during the setup phase of the program? (Please check all that
apply)
___Personnel
___Funding
___Industry support
___Program support
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. Looking back, what would you change about the program setup?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
6. Was the program modeled after another program that was already in existence?
___Yes
___No
7. If so, which one?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
8. What is the primary source for funding this program?
83
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9. What are the three most expensive aspects of the program?
___Promotion tags
___Personnel
___Advertising ? 46.2%
___Travel (for committee meetings, visit to trials, etc.)
___Diagnostics/Analyses
___Maintenance of plots
___Other
10. Does the program generate a revenue stream for the organization?
___Yes
___No
___Not sure
11. If so, is this revenue adequate to sustain the program or is dependent on
appropriated funds or endowment earnings?
___Yes, the revenue stream is adequate
___No, the revenue stream is no adequate
___N/A
12. Have you found granting agencies to be supportive of your efforts?
___Yes
___No
___N/A
13. If yes, then what amount of grant money has the program received?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
14. Please describe any funding sources to initiate a program like this.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
15. How long has the program been in existence?
___1-2 years
___3-5 years
___6-10 years
___11-15 years
___>15 years
16. Are you the program coordinator?
84
___Yes
___No
___N/A
17. For which classification do you work?
___University
___Botanical garden
___State green industry association
___Extension
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
18. Approximately how many people are directly involved in the plant selection
program?
___1-5
___6-10
___11-15
___16-20
___21-25
___>25
19. Are there committees that nominate the plants?
___Yes
___No
20. If yes, how are the members of the nomination committees chosen?
___Volunteers
___Selected by the program
21. What classification do the members represent? (Please check all that apply.)
___Landscapers
___Nursery/greenhouse growers
___University faculty
___Master gardeners
___Extension personnel
___Homeowners/gardeners
___Botanical garden staff
___Sod growers
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
22. How often does the nomination committee meet?
In person
___0/yr
85
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
Email
___0/yr
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
Conference calls
___0/yr
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
23. If you answered no to question 19, who can nominate plants for consideration?
Please check all that apply.
___Anyone
___Landscapers
___Nursery/greenhouse growers
___University faculty
___Master Gardeners
___Extension personnel
___Botanical garden staff
___Sod growers
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
24. Are there committees that choose the winners?
___Yes
___No
25. If yes, how are the members of the awarding committee chosen?
___Volunteers
___Selected by the program
26. What classification do the awarding committee members represent? Please select
all that apply.
___Landscapers
___Nursery/greenhouse growers
___University faculty
___Master gardeners
86
___Extension personnel
___Home owners/home gardeners
___Botanical garden staff
___Sod growers
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
27. How often does the awarding committee meet?
In person
___0/yr
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
Email
___0/yr
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
Conference calls
___0/yr
___1-2/yr
___3-4/yr
___5-6/yr
___>6/yr
28. If you answered no to question 24, who selects the winners?
___Program coordinator
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
29. How do the individuals or committees choose the winners from the nominations?
___Group discussion
___Judging form
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
30. What are the criteria for selection of the winning plants? Please select all that
apply.
___Ease of propagation
___Ease of maintenance
___Pest and disease resistance
___Consumer appeal
87
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
31. How often do you award a plant in each of the following plant categories?
Always Sometimes Never
Perennial ___ ___ ___
Tree ___ ___ ___
Shrub ___ ___ ___
Vine ___ ___ ___
Annual ___ ___ ___
Grass ___ ___ ___
Fruit ___ ___ ___
Vegetable ___ ___ ___
Other ___ ___ ___
32. For the categories that you chose ?Always?, is there a limitation to the number of
plants that are chosen?
___ Yes, we only choose 1 or 2 plants for each of the categories with an entry
___ No, we choose the number based on the entries that year
33. Which areas in the program are the most challenging?
___ Plant nomination
___ Plant selections
___ Committee member selection
___ Grower support/acceptance
___ Retailer support/acceptance
___ Consumer awareness
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
34. Are the plant selections tested or trialed by the plant selection program before
they are selected as an award winner?
___ Yes
___ No
35. How long are the plants trialed?
Trees ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Shrubs ___ N/A
___ 1 year
88
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Perennial ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Vine ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Annual ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Grass ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Fruit ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Vegetables ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
Other ___ N/A
___ 1 year
___ 2 years
___ 3-5 years
89
___ 6-10 years
___ >10 years
36. Has there been a positive economic response to the program (increased sales of
the selected plants)?
___ Yes
___ No
___ Not sure
37. Who has reported an increase in sales and by how much? Please approximate the
amount in percentage form.
Growers___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Retailers__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
38. Have retailers been directly contacted to make them aware of your plant selection
program?
___ Yes
___ No
39. Approximately how many retail garden centers do you think market your plant
selection program?
___ 0-20
___ 21-40
___ 41-60
___ 61-80
___ 81-100
___ >100
40. Do you have promotional items for retailers?
___ Yes
___ No
41. If yes, what type of items and what cost to the retailer? (If you do not have one of
the following items please write N/A)
___ Signs _________________________________________________________
___ Pot tags/labels__________________________________________________
___ Brochures/flyers_________________________________________________
___ Bookmarks_____________________________________________________
___ Advertisement materials __________________________________________
___ Other_________________________________________________________
42. What has been your most popular/most used promotional item?
90
___ Signs
___ Pot tags/labels
___ Brochures/flyers
___ Bookmarks
___ Advertisement materials
___ N/A
___ Other _________________________________________________________
43. Have growers been directly contacted to make them aware of your plant selection
program?
___ Yes
___ No
44. Approximately how many growers do you think market your plant selection
program?
___ 0-20
___ 21-40
___ 41-60
___ 61-80
___ 81-100
___ >100
45. Do you market your program directly to consumers?
___ Yes
___ No
46. If yes, how do you direct market to consumers? (Select all that apply.)
___ Newspaper ads
___ Newspaper articles
___ Magazine ads
___ Magazine articles
___ Television spots
___ Website
___ Direct mail
___ N/A
___ Other_________________________________________________________
47. May we contact you for follow up?
___ Yes
___ No
48. What is the official name of your plant selection program?
__________________________________________________________________
91
49. Any additional comments?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
92
APPENDIX D
Questionnaire for Alabama Growers and Retailers
Please answer the following questions. If any of the questions do not apply, please
choose the N/A option.
1. Are you aware that some states have ornamental plant selection/introduction
programs?
___Yes
___No
2. Do you know any information about state based ornamental plant
selection/introduction programs?
___Yes
___No
3. If Alabama started a plant selection program, what level of involvement would
you as a grower or retailer like to have? Check all that apply.
___None
___Nominating the potential plants
___Serving on a plants selection committee
___Marketing/advertising the plants
___Growing and/or selling the selected plants
4. Do you think a program like this could help your business?
___Yes
___No
___Not sure
5. There are many different ways that a plant selection program can be set up.
Would you prefer the nominated plants to be trialed for a period of time before
they are chosen as award winning plants?
___Yes
___No
6. If you answered yes, then who should trial the plants?
___N/A
___Alabama Coop Extension service
___In-state university faculty/departments
___Growers
___Botanical/public/private gardens
93
___Other__________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
7. Who do you think should be able to nominate the plants as potential award
winning plants? Check all that apply.
___Anyone
___Only people chosen to serve on a plant nominating committee
___Anyone in the green industry (landscapers, growers, retailers, university
faculty, etc.)
___Other_____________________________________________
8. What is your business? Check all that apply.
___Wholesale grower
___Retail grower
___Contract grower
___Retail garden center
9. If there is a retail aspect to your business, would you be willing to display
advertisement material in your store as a way to market the award winning plants?
___N/A
___Yes
___No
___Not sure
10. Do you currently display advertisement for any trademarked line of plant material
in your business?
___N/A
___Yes
___No
11. Do you sell or grow plants for any plant selection/introduction programs?
___Yes
___No
12. If you answered yes, which programs?
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
13. If you ship plants from your business, where do you ship the plants you grow?
___N/A
___In-state
___Out-of-state
___Out of the country
14. If you sell plants, where do you get them?
94
___My own nursery/greenhouse
___In-state growers
___Out-of-state growers
___Out of the country
15. If you grow your own plants, what are the origins of these plants? Check all that
apply.
___Seeds
___Purchased plugs
___Cuttings
___Grafts/buds
___Containers to shift up
16. What is the population of the town in which you are located?
___0-9,000
___9,000-17,000
___17,000-29,000
___29,000-49,000
___49,000-88,000
___88,000-663,000
___over 663,000
17. What are the average gross sales for green goods in your business for the past two
years?
___Under $100,000
___$100,000-$250,000
___$250,000-$500,000
___$500,000-$750,000
___$750,000-$1,000,000
___Over $1,000,000
18. If you have a retail aspect to your business, what is the average amount spent by
customers in your store per transaction?________________________________
19. How many part time/seasonal employees do you have?
___N/A
___0-10
___11-25
___Over 25
20. How many full time employees do you have?
___N/A
___0-10
___11-25
___over 25
95
21. Do you have a florist shop component to your business?
___Yes
___No
22. What does your operation consist of? Check all that apply
___Greenhouse
___Field production/containers
___Retail
___Propagation material
___Bare root nursery stock
___Other___________________________________________
23. How many square feet of greenhouse/polyhouse do you have in production?
___________________________________________________
24. How many acres of field production do you have?
___________________________________________________
25. How many square feet of retail space do you have?
___________________________________________________
26. What do you grow? Check all that apply. `
___N/A ___Annuals
___Perennials ___Shrubs
___Trees ___Christmas trees
___Propagative materials ___Bare root nursery stock
___Fruit bearing plants ___Vegetable plants
___Herbs
___Other_________________________________
27. Please list the top three wholesale revenue producing plants that you grow.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
28. What plants do you sell to retail consumers?
___N/A ___Annuals
___Perennials ___Shrubs
___Trees ___Christmas trees
___Propagative materials ___Bare root nursery stock
___Fruit bearing plants ___Vegetable plants
___Herbs
___Other_________________________________
96
29. Please list the top three plants that you sell to retail consumers.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
30. Are you a member of any professional green industry organizations?
___Yes
___No
31. If you answered yes, please check the organizations in which you are a member
___Alabama Nursery & Landscape Association
___Mississippi Nursery & Landscape Association
___Tennessee Nursery & Landscape Association
___Florida Nursery & Growers Association
___International Plant Propagator?s Society
___Southern Nursery Association
___Greater Birmingham Association of Landscape Professionals
___Other__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
32. Suggestions for possible names for program?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
33. Other comments?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire! Your response is
greatly appreciated!
Please return in the enclosed stamped envelope to:
Emily Harris
101 Funchess Hall
Department of Horticulture
Auburn University, AL 36849
97
APPENDIX E
Figure 1. Mr. James Harwell?s letter asking for support of the Alabama grower and
retailer survey.
98
Figure 2. Informational cover letter sent to Alabama growers and retailers.