Characterizing the landscape of plant science careers in the United States I: Government and private sector perspectives

Abstract

Plant science plays a crucial role in our society and in ongoing efforts to address many global challenges, including food insecurity and climate change. Yet, despite a predicted increase in plant science career opportunities in the United States, the botanical career landscape outside of academia is not well understood.To further our understanding of the training required for non-academic botanical careers, the botanical sub-disciplines used on the job, and career challenges faced by plant scientists, we surveyed 61 scientists working in government and 59 scientists working in the private sector in the United States.In both career sectors, > 80% of survey participants reported recent hires at the bachelor's degree level. New personnel with master's degrees were more commonly reported in the government sector (95%) than in the private sector (69%). Most plant scientists working in government reported a focus on plant ecology and resource management. By contrast, most industry/non-profit work involved horticulture and biotechnology, with some specific skills spanning both sectors. Notably, one prediction made nearly a decade ago appears to be manifesting: plant scientists seem to be retiring more quickly than they are being replaced. Survey respondents reported that attempts to hire full-time staff are met with obstacles, including insufficient funding. Plant science professionals in both career sectors emphasized their routine use of botanical skills developed as students, highlighting the need for effective training at the undergraduate level.We discuss the implications of these findings and present several recommendations for preparing future generations of plant scientists and increasing the scientific community's botanical capacity.

INTRODUCTION

Over a decade ago, a team of researchers deployed a survey to evaluate critical gaps in botanical capacity across government, academic, and private sectors in the United States, defining botanical capacity as an indicator that encompasses plant-related education, training, research, and the application of plant science in the workforce (Kramer et al., 2010). In their seminal report Assessing Botanical Capacity to Address Grand Challenges in the United States (hereafter the “Kramer Report”; Kramer et al., 2010), the authors' 2009 survey results showed pervasive loss of botanical degree programs and courses across U.S. universities (1569 individuals from all sectors combined participated in the survey). They found a significant loss in the academic training of botanical professionals and a large number of impending retirements of plant scientists in the government sector. They forecast serious shortages in the number of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professionals with plant skills and knowledge, which could compromise our ability to address contemporary issues (Henkhaus et al., 2020; Stroud et al., 2022) including climate change (Primack et al., 2021) and sustainable food production (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2021).

The Kramer Report has formed the foundation for course transformation, program alignment with workforce needs, and even the basis for global strategies in conservation. The graduate student data collected by the Kramer Report (Sundberg et al., 2011) have prompted additional commentary, policy positions, and frameworks for better alignment between higher education and career preparation (Kleckner & Marshall, 2014; O'Leary, 2012; Rupp, 2012; Stewart, 2021). Yet, how can we truly have a plan for the future of plant science careers when current interventions are based on decade-old data? The field of plant science, botany, and agriculture technology have evolved with more advanced research tools, an increased emphasis on collaboration, and a focus on interdisciplinary research. One major factor in the increased interdisciplinary nature of science is the increasing complexity of (plant) scientific problems, which often require the expertise and perspectives of multiple disciplines to fully understand and solve. Additionally, advances in technology and communication have made it easier for researchers from different disciplines to collaborate and share data and ideas. Many universities and research institutions are now promoting interdisciplinary research by creating cross-disciplinary centers, programs, and initiatives. Furthermore, many funding agencies now require or encourage interdisciplinary research in their grant programs, which can encourage researchers to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries. As such, the types of skills needed by professionals entering the field may have also changed.

In fact, the idea of a botanist has changed over time as well. Classically, botanists focused on taxonomic and systemic classification of plants. When broadening the scope, a botanist falls within the plant scientists and these terms are often used interchangeably in the United States. In this study, we are using the term “botanist” to include anyone whose work involves research on plants, which may include plant scientists, agronomists, horticulturists, plant conservationists, plant ecologists, and so forth.

Since the Kramer Report, there has been a decline in the numbers of botany students and faculty, botany courses, and even botany departments (Crisci et al., 2020) and frameworks for future education and interventions need to reflect these changes. An increasing number of studies and opinion articles have also voiced concerns about our ability to address complex challenges if undergraduate curricula fail to provide adequate plant science training (Stroud et al., 2022). Other studies have offered recommendations for increasing awareness of and appreciation of plants in the general public (Krishnan et al., 2019; McDonough-MacKenzie et al., 2019) and undergraduate classrooms (Colon et al., 2020; Hiatt et al., 2021). Updating the Kramer Report will help us to better plan for the needs of the future and implement novel and practical training solutions that build botanical capacity in the United States.

Innovative solutions for addressing botanical capacity deficits are critical, as the number of plant-science related jobs is projected to increase by 5–7% over the next decade, nearly double the average projected job growth rate (3.7%) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c). However, it is expected that the botanical capacity of the United States has declined in the last decade (Friesner et al., 2021; Jones, 2014). Despite the predicted demand for STEM professionals with at least some botanical training, the landscape of plant science employment opportunities outside of academia and the nature of plant-related job skills required to access these opportunities is not communicated to the next generation. In general, many young plant scientists aspire to be a professor, and anything else is considered to be a lesser, “alternative career.” Although industry jobs tend to be focused on research, and are therefore “acceptable,” other positions, such as teaching at the high school or community college, non-profit work, or working for a government agency, are considered less prestigious. These subtle distinctions among plant-science careers likely do not go unnoticed by students in the plant sciences (Henkhaus et al., 2022) and may prevent students from seeking careers that they could find rewarding and fulfilling.

Now is the time to align the knowledge and skills being taught in higher education to the next generation of plant professionals with the skills needed to be a plant scientist. For example, the Kramer Report recommended offering “courses that meet requirements for employment as a federal botanist (such as botany, plant anatomy, morphology, taxonomy and systematics, mycology, ethnobotany, and other plant-specific courses).” Although restoring these courses across colleges and universities is one option, implementing academic program changes is often a slow and difficult process, given that faculty positions have also shifted away from these areas (Barrows et al., 2016; Wilcove & Eisner, 2000). Novel solutions that are easier to implement are needed to address the shortfall in botanical training quickly, for example, integrating plant knowledge and botanical skills into interdisciplinary courses and using innovative approaches in plant science education and training rather than the intensive, time-consuming process of offering new courses (Colon et al., 2020).

Over the course of two companion manuscripts, one focused on the government and private sectors and the other focused on academia (Walsh et al., 2023), and we describe current trends in employment opportunities, training, and required skills related to careers in plant sciences. In the current article, which focused on government and private sector data, we address the following questions:

1. Who are our respondents (demographics) and where are they employed?
2. What expertise, degrees, skills, and/or knowledge are necessary for a career in the plant sciences?
3. How do current plant scientists see their professional career landscape changing?

MATERIALS AND METHODS Modification of the botanical capacity questionnaire using a botanically focused research coordination network

Using the Kramer Report as a template, seven researchers (MM, HL, KC-D, CB, LLW, and AH, KMP) adapted existing questionnaire items from the Kramer Report and developed new questionnaire items related to botanical capacity in the United States for four separate job sectors: government, industry/non-profit, academic faculty, and academic graduate students. We chose to differentiate between the two non-academic career sectors, government and private (industry/non-profit), because career pathways and the nature of the employers differ. Government careers are typically stable with a transparent pathway to promotions, provide public services, and are held accountable by the Freedom of Information Act. Private sector careers often pay a more competitive salary, focus on improving profits or donations, and are held accountable by stockholders or donors. We excluded questions in the Kramer Report that were not seen as informative to the central purpose of the study. For example, we removed questions asking respondents where they had presented seminars and how many media interviews they had done. We also streamlined other questions to make them more user friendly. For example, the Kramer survey asked respondents “how do you identify yourself” and provided a dropdown list of 30 choices. We changed this to an open-ended question: “How would you describe your area of expertise?” Our resulting data set expands on the Kramer Report by including the option for participants to leave open-ended responses that can be used to comprehensively evaluate the qualitative data that were collected.

A total of 12 members of a botanically focused National Science Foundation Research Coordination Network (RCN) “Seeing Green” (NSF DBI 1920008) evaluated the questionnaire items and participated in an online focus group to review, edit, and update the questionnaire. Focus group members were asked for feedback in regards to the wording of each item, the purpose of each item, the length of the entire questionnaire, and their overall experience while completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire was edited based on the feedback of the focus group and items that were identified as not closely related to our study objectives, poorly written, confusing, too time consuming, or repetitive were removed. No individual data from focus group participants were included in the current analysis. The questionnaire was granted Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (FIU IRB-21-0457). The questions used for data collection are presented in Method S1. Briefly, a demographic question block collected general information from participants using short answer questions, select all that apply, and multiple choice questions. The four career sector question blocks included multiple choice questions, 4-point Likert scale questions, open-ended questions, select all that apply, and 3-point Likert scale questions.

Distribution of the botanical capacity questionnaire

The Botanical Capacity questionnaire was administered through Qualtrics (online survey software; Provo, UT and Seattle, WA). After a set of demographic questions, the questionnaire branched into four separate surveys for the four unique career sectors: government, industry/non-profit, academic faculty, and academic graduate students. Links to the questionnaire and a description of the research study were sent to relevant listservs and individual contacts of the “Seeing Green” RCN network (https://seeinggreenrcn.org/) and distributed using social media and snowball protocols. The questionnaire was open from November 2021 through April 2022. A total of 259 complete responses were recorded, and results are presented across the two companion manuscripts. We recognize that our data set is smaller than that in the Kramer Report (1569 individuals from all sectors combined contributed to the Kramer Report); however, our data collection took place during the COVID pandemic when the opportunity for in-person conferences and interactions to solicit survey participation was reduced dramatically. It is also possible that since the Kramer Report study in 2009, as predicted, there are fewer plant scientists because of retirees not being replaced. However, because we also included qualitative items, a smaller data set is necessary for making analysis of the qualitative questions possible. Questionnaires were completely anonymous and participants had the option to receive a $25 Amazon gift card as an incentive (141 participants chose to receive a gift card).

Qualitative data analysis and inductive coding

To complement our quantitative data, we collected open-ended responses (Methods S1). For example, for the quantitative question of “How often is botanical knowledge needed as part of your daily activities?” we asked the follow-up qualitative question of “Please explain your answer.” Open-ended response data were analyzed using inductive coding, a subset of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), and Nvivo software (NVivo version 11.4, QSR International). Per definition, inductive coding is free from theoretical frameworks. Instead, inductive coding is completely driven by the participants' responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Seven researchers (MM, KMP, BJS, MU, HBO, RG, and DO) read all of the short answer responses and independently created lists of the different perceptions, attitudes, and opinions that arose from participant responses. Initial findings were discussed among the researchers, and a preliminary code book was developed consisting of short, descriptive phrases that could be used to describe particular perceptions, attitudes, or opinions expressed by the participants (Methods S2). Each short answer question was then independently coded by two researchers. The pair of researchers then convened to discuss, further define, and reduce codes that were unclear. Responses corresponding to more than one theme were coded to each code they corresponded with. Kappa values measuring inter-rater reliability (the extent to which researchers assign the same code to the same data) were over 0.8, which represent higher standards than recommended (0.65) (Syed & Nelson, 2015).

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for both our quantitative and qualitative data were calculated and visualized using Microsoft Excel. For most questions, respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer which is why the percentages of answers do not add up to 100%.

RESULTS Who are our respondents (demographics) and where are they employed?

The participants across all four career sectors self-reported as 51% female, 46% male, 2% cisgender, and 2% preferred not to respond. The participants were able to select all that apply which is why the individual percentages add to over 100. The participants self-reported as 87% American citizens, 5% naturalized, 4% on a work/study visa, 2% green card holders, and 2% preferred not to respond. For the highest completed degree, 42% of the participants reported a Ph.D., 32% reported a MA/MS, 23% reported a BA/BS, 2% reported a High School degree, and 1% reported an AA/AAS/AS. Data were collected from participants in 44 U.S. states and the District of Columbia as well as three international locations. We included the international responses in our analysis because we believe that the United States is not unique in its botanical capacity issues.

The survey asked the participants to assign themselves to a particular job sector, and at this point the survey split into four parts, one for each job sector. The participants self-reported as 38% academic faculty, 23% government, 23% industry/non-profit, and 16% academic graduate students (Figure S1). Here, we present data only from the government (n = 61) and industry/non-profit (n = 59) respondents. The government participants self-reported as 54% female and 46% male, whereas private sector participants self-reported as 57% female and 43% male. Forty-six percent of government employees had master's degrees, 34% had no graduate degree, and 20% had a Ph.D. Forty-two percent of private sector employees had master's degrees, 32% had PhDs, and 25% had no graduate degree. The government participants self-reported as 93% white, 12% Hispanic or Latina, and 2% Asian. Private sector participants self-reported as 91% white, 12% Asian, 5% Hispanic or Latina, 5% American Indian, 4% Black, 4% Middle Eastern, and 2% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander.

Plant scientists from various disciplines were employed across all levels of government and private sector. Almost half of government workers were at the state level (48%), and just over half of industry/non-profit participants worked at a for-profit company (56%; Figure S2). Qualitative data provided more information on where government and industry/non-profit participants are employed, as detailed in Table S1.

What expertise, degrees, skills, and/or knowledge are necessary for a career in the botanical sciences?

The ecology category was the dominant reported area of expertise for government participants; whereas plant science was the most prevalent category for industry/non-profit participants (Figure 1). Example short answer responses further detailing different expertise from participants are shown in Table 1 (code book is found in Methods S2).

FIGURE 1. Inductive coding of short answer responses provided by survey participants describes their area of expertise in plant science. The y-axis shows expertise codes found in the data set, and the x-axis indicates which sector participants were from (U.S. government, n = 61; U.S. industry/non-profit, n = 59). The data are shown graphically, with the area of each circle being representative of the percentage of participant responses connecting to each code (the exact percentage is noted within each circle). Some responses correspond to more than one code which is why the percentages of answers add up to greater than 100%. The code book is found in Method S2.

TABLE 1 Example participant responses to the survey question “What is your expertise?” and their associated code.

Code	Government responses	Industry/non-profit responses
Plant scientist	Botanist My main expertise is with the ecology and biology of native plants and communities[…] I also spend a lot of time assisting with native plant revegetation and invasive species management.	Botanist Forester Horticulturist
Ecologist	Community ecologist Generalist ecologist responsible for a wide range of parks related issues. Ecologist/ecotoxicologist	Ecologist Plant ecology Restoration ecologist
Biologist	Field biologist Geneticist Biogeographer, bioinformatician	Biologist, but I am currently just an intern so I am still learning! Field biologist Conservation geneticist, botanist
Aquatic	Aquatic biologist Aquatic plant biology	Aquatic biologist Environmental and aquaculture scientist Watershed scientist/aquatic biologist
Conservation	Conservation biologist Conservation ecologist with a focus in plant sciences I have years of experience in natural resource management, invasive species management, native planting, habitat restoration, and ecology. Land management/natural areas management/conservation may be the most appropriate terms.	Conservation advocate I work in the area of conservation, we take different species of native plants from the United States and other parts of the world and we take care of them and conserve them in botanical gardens. I specialize in the area of conservation and care of all types of plant varieties native to Florida and other parts of the world

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 61 government and 59 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Methods S2.

For both sectors, bachelor's and master's degrees outpaced the current hiring of PhDs (Figure 2). Eighty percent of industry/non-profit respondents and 82.5% of government respondents indicated that they are currently hiring new personnel with bachelor's degrees. Note that not all participants were in a position to hire people, so these data provide a general estimate of the hiring practices where participants are employed. Master's degrees were more common for new hires in the government sector, with 95% of respondents that new hires have master's degrees, than in the industry/non-profit sector (69). These findings agree with our participant demographics, as more industry/non-profit participants held MA/MS degrees and PhD's than government participants (74.6% and 65.6%, respectively).

FIGURE 2. The government (n = 61) and industry/non-profit (n = 59) participants in the United States specify the education levels at which they currently hire. Data are shown as total percent responding. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer which is why the percentages of answers add up to greater than 100%.

Overall, the three courses most often taken in college and/or graduate school by all our respondents were botany (or field botany), ecosystem science, and plant ecology (Table S2). Some of the categories with differences between sectors included “plant pathology,” “plant genetics and/or genomics,” “horticulture,” and “agronomy and crop science,” where more industry/non-profit participants completed these courses than their government participant counterparts. We see the opposite with “plant ecology” and “ecosystem science,” where government participants were more likely to have completed these courses (63.9% government to 54.2% industry/non-profit for plant ecology and 77.0%–62.7% for ecosystem science) than their industry/non-profit counterparts.

Overall, the three courses participants wished they had completed in college and/or graduate school were horticulture, plant conservation, and plant genetics/genomics (Table S3). As the questionnaire item was worded “Please check the plant science and related courses that you wish you completed while in college and/or graduate school,” we cannot determine whether the participants were answering based on success in their career path or their personal interests. The three courses most desired by government employees were horticulture, plant conservation, and landscape; and the three courses most desired by private sector employees were plant genetics/genomics, horticulture, and plant conservation. A higher percentage of private sector employees wished they had taken agronomy and crop science and ethnobotany compared to their government peers (25.4%–9.8% for agronomy and crop science and 28.8%–23.0% for ethnobotany). A higher percentage of government employees wished they had taken landscape, taxon-specific botany, evolutionary biology, horticulture, and plant conservation. In general, the government participants reported wishing they had completed more courses than their industry counterparts, especially courses such as “taxon-specific botany,” “plant conservation,” “landscape,” and “horticulture.”

Government and industry/non-profit respondents used different botanical knowledge and/or skills in their current position (Figure 3). In line with what we see with course work, government employees tended to utilize knowledge of ecology, conservation, and restoration and management more than their industry/non-profit peers. Industry/non-profit participants tended to utilize their knowledge of crop science and biotechnology more than their government peers.

FIGURE 3. The government (n = 61) and industry/non-profit (n = 59) participants in the United States specify which botanical knowledge and/or skills they use as part of their employment. Data are shown as total percent responding. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer which is why the percentages of answers add up to greater than 100%.

The majority of both sets of participants responded that they needed their botanical knowledge and/or skills “every day” or “most days” (Figure 4). However, the private sector reported using their botanical knowledge and/or skills more than government respondents. Over 70% of government and over 90% of private sector participants replied that they use their botanical knowledge and/or skills every day or most days. In both instances, our data suggested that industry/non-profit employees used their botanical knowledge and/or skills more than government employees.

FIGURE 4. The government (n = 61) and industry/non-profit (n = 59) participants in the United States describe how often they use their botanical knowledge and/or skills. Data are shown as total percent responding.

How do current plant scientists see their professional career landscape changing?

For the government participants, the top three reported challenges were lack of management funding, poorly enforced environmental laws, and lack of support staff in their institution (Figure S3). Although the government participants were not so concerned about their own knowledge, they were concerned about the lack of their coworkers' knowledge and the lack of support staff. In addition, the government participants were concerned by a lack of management funding and a lack of scientists within management.

The industry/non-profit participants were most concerned about government inefficiency (Figure S4). Industry/non-profit participants also shared the same concerns regarding lack of management funding and lack of support staff as their government peers. Additionally, lack of botanical expertise, for themselves and their colleagues, was slightly higher than what we observed with the government participants.

Over the last 5 to 10 years, both sectors reported full- and part-time positions remaining steady (Figure S5). We saw slightly higher increases for part-time positions over full-time positions within our government data, with the opposite occurring in industry/non-profit data. Industry/non-profit careers had the highest percentage responses for steady part-time positions. Qualitative data explained these trends further by providing a more comprehensive breakdown of how participants described changes in career positions over the last 5–10 years (Figure 5). Example participant responses are shown in Table 2. These data showed us that changes in funding, both increases and decreases, affect the total number of positions both positively and negatively. The government participants described both overall position increases and decreases more than their industry/non-profit peers. In addition, the government participants described retirements and seasonal work affecting positions much more than their industry/non-profit peers. We see retirement being mentioned in government but not in industry.

FIGURE 5. Inductive coding of short answer responses provided by survey participants describes how career positions have changed over the last 5–10 years. The y-axis shows codes found in the data set, and the x-axis indicates which sector participants were from (U.S. government, n = 41; industry/non-profit, n = 55). The data are shown graphically, with the area of each circle being representative of the percentage of participant responses connecting to each code (the exact percentage is noted within each circle). Some responses correspond to more than one code, whereas others did not answer this question, which is why the percentages of answers do not add up to 100%. The code book is found in Method S2.

TABLE 2 Example participant responses to the survey question “How have career positions changed in your agency/company/institution over the last 5–10 years?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry
Change in funding	Hiring freezes and budget shortfalls More seasonal positions due to budget cuts The number of full-time botanist/plant scientist has not increased and often the positions remain vacant for years. Part-time positions have decreased due to loss of funding.	As we increase our funding and survey capacity, we need more experts. We have expanded our funding to hire full-time staff through internal core funding, grants, and contracts. We have shifted away from hiring temporary staff short-term on grants as the time spent hiring and managing those staff is high compared to the amount of time they work on a project.
Full-time positions increased	Throughout my career in several government agencies, I have seen an increase in part-/full-time workers (mostly technicians and other field positions), although I do not believe that it is keeping up with the number of people who leave the career field. In general, it seems government work means being understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. I would say that overall it, hiring/employment has remained steady but considering that there is only more work with time, you could consider it a decrease as we have more work with the same people.	As our company has grown, we have hired more full time scientists. Our organization is growing and we have added additional interns and one new full time staff member.
Full-time positions decreased	Hard to say, as I've only been with my agency for about 5 years, but seasonal hires are very common. It is nearly impossible to hire a full-time person, and this is often done as a short-term contract (4 years) instead of permanent. We have hired more temporary employees and have removed important full time positions	Full-time positions have decreased lately due to the pandemic. Since 2000, there have been dramatic losses in positions (full-time and part-time) There is one botanist who works for the entire state of Texas Parks and Wildlife department. ONE! [… T]he Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History[…]has been losing curators in the Department of Botany since the late 1970s/early 1980s. With fewer full time positions, there is less support for part-time hires (and less interest, especially recently in the “great recession”.
Retirement	As employees reach retirement, their positions are often not re-filled, and we've lost some entire programs to this. About 1/4 of all CT state employees are set to become eligible for retirement on 6/1/22, and many of their positions will not be re-filled in order to meet the state budget. When true “botanists” retire they are being replaced with positions like “ecologists” if the positions are filled at all.	No responses
Seasonal position increased	We have hired more temporary employees and have removed important full time positions More seasonal positions due to budget cuts	We have more contractors, so full time but not permanent, also we are a for profit
Seasonal position decreased	No responses	While full-time and part-time staff supported by our operating budget and grant funds have remained steady or even slightly increased, we have had a large decline in part-time (seasonal) positions as a result of changes in federal funding via cooperative agreements.
Seasonal position stayed the same	Increased staff has occurred. Seasonal staff remain steady Our few positions, 4, have increased by one since we were able to establish a new botanist position 5 years ago … In terms of temporary positions we have not had any. Recently we have had some university student volunteers although their capacity and follow through has been inconsistent.	No responses

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 41 government and 55 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

Both sectors would like to see more plant scientists being hired (Figure S6). Across both sectors, we saw the majority of responses indicating that both agencies and jobs would benefit from more botanists. Example responses from participants are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3 Example participant responses to the survey question “Would their agency/company/institution benefit from more botanists?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry
Agency: Yes (specific to institution)	My agency employs many scientists but plant management is solely left to one group. The issue is that if you know about these topics you realize how it is involved in almost every project and if there are no scientists this issue is not considered. I do believe that everyone having more scientific skills and knowledge would have a better outcome overall. Yes - knowing plants in the field, and understanding how to grow them, and manage habitats is critical to the success of our mission. The agency faces a wave of retirements, and I am not certain we will be able to find qualified candidates.	I believe so. Understanding fundamental plant development is important in many focus areas within my company. We can always use more botanists, especially from a diversity and inclusion perspective and newer, cutting edge training! Yes - there are far too many projects for our current staff to handle and far too many requests for us to support projects that we cannot support because of botany staff shortage.
Agency: Yes (self-centered)	My work would benefit by having more botanists in leadership positions at my agency.	Yes. The more the merrier. A diverse background in experience and thinking will only help. I am a forest ecologist and tree physiologist. The diverse experience I bring has only been a contribution.
Agency: Yes (field-centered)	Absolutely yes, research in medical school is very beneficial to human health, research on botanical medicines needs more experts Yes, plant conservation would become a higher priority if there were more botanists.	Partly yes, because it is always good to have botanical professionals, thanks to them we can know about the type of plants, the different varieties of plants, your taxonomy of plants, what type of pests attack plants, what types of climates and terrains are adapt these plants, for our company it is important to have professional botanists.
Job: Yes (specific to institution)	Better training could help my team with plant IDs. Yes, additional people with plant science skills and knowledge would contribute towards better detecting and monitoring of rare, threatened, and endangered plant populations within the park.	Absolutely – we need people with a scientific background who can collaborate with education team members to make information accessible and approachable to the public. Additionally, their perspective would benefit the practicing horticulture staff from a more fundamental standpoint, as well as influence and expand understandings of the admin and office staff, most of which are unfamiliar with botanical topics across the board. It would help from an education/outreach standpoint but also open more opportunities to funding/grant applicability based on the botanists' skillset (i.e. terrestrial botanist vs. aquatic biologist). More botanists working at the company would be able to cover more ground with monitoring in detection of species in tributaries and waterways.
Job: Yes (self-centered)	I wouldn't have to work 60 to 80 + hours a week during the field season.	I like that you work with people who are botanists because I learn many things from them more in the scientific area because thanks to them research is done we can learn more about everything related to plants It enriches you as a professional. It is always good to acquire knowledge or ideas from other professionals. When you work with other botanists there is always a benefit you learn from them too.
Job: Yes (field-centered)	A deeper understanding of the science that could be more accessible on the level of management units (e.g., having more regional or national-level staff available to support individual management units, whether parks, refuges, etc). Yes - plant blindness and animal bias are very real. More plant knowledgeable and plant focused people would help steer much needed funds to plant conservation. Plants comprise 55–60% of the federally listed species under the ESA, but receive less than 5% of the recovery funding.	Yes - always, we need more botanists. There are almost half a million species of plants, the vast majority are hardly known at all and there are very few botanists. Yes, it's always good to have additional, diverse perspectives on how to meet the global food security challenges that we are faced with now and will be facing in the future.

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 60 government and 58 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

Because the Kramer Report suggested a lack of trained plant scientists in the workforce, we asked the participants whether their agency or organization faces any challenges because of insufficient expertise (Figure S7). Although approximately a quarter of participants in both sectors responded no, we did see a total of 59% of yes responses for plant scientists and other remaining categories. Example participant responses are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Example participant responses to the survey question “Does your agency/company/institution face challenges due to insufficient expertise?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry
No	No. we rely on other institutions if knowledge is unknown or the agency is not equipped to deal with certain situations. My agency employs many scientists and overall I do not believe we suffer from insufficient expertise. But I think at the micro level there should be more plant knowledge, outside of just the scientists.	No. we benefit from having plant research and conservation skills on staff but it does not affect our core operations No, not to my knowledge. For my specific location, we are about 20 minutes from UC Davis which is one of the best plant science universities in the country so we are fortunate and rarely lack qualified candidates for open positions. No, because it is not a hard skill that is required. As long as they have a biology background, training plays a huge role in on/boarding. However, some concepts would be better understood if they had botanical skills.
Yes, other	Yes, we rely on outside researchers and private-companies for much of the expertise that is needed to create/implement our management projects. Yes, especially in areas that aren't cities and younger people don't want to move there. It's hard to get a strong pool of applicants in more rural areas. Yes, we are thrust into new challenges and do not always have the expertise, so we are left to catch up with additional trainings, conferences.	Yes. I am the person who gets contract work because there aren't enough qualified institutional staff. Having a degree is an insufficient barometer in assessing one's field skills. Yes. If I were not available, many projects would not get done. For projects where we need particular expertise, we often have to wait and delay progress. Yes, we are short-staffed across all positions, which is affecting the job satisfaction of our team members and our ability to meet our clients' needs.
Yes, plant scientist	Yes, with the cycling of seasonal workers, it is always an investment in time to re-train new hires to know the local flora. Government agencies seem to be split between long-term, high-responsibility roles and short-term, seasonal (data collection) roles. There should be more interfacing between the two. Yes, plant conservation is a low priority because there are not many people within my agency that think about plant conservation as separate from animal conservation/preserving habitat for animals.	Yes- at the R&D stations the research is only as good as your agronomic and botanical practices. People who should be focusing on other areas of the research often spend much of their time trying to understand the basics of physiology, pathology, agronomy etc instead of the actual research and operations. Yes - without seasonal support staff with strong botanical knowledge, our year round staff spend more time supporting them and less time initiating other research projects. To a certain extent, yes. We work with stakeholders to provide unbiased scientific data and information. Without this skill set, we cannot properly make decisions for plant management and understand aquatic plant dynamics. We also work with stakeholders to discuss best management practices in the watershed, which may involve discussing beneficial native plant species and their role in reducing nutrient runoff, erosion, etc.

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 60 government and 58 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

Overall, for both sectors, it did not seem that openings were remaining unfilled for lack of botanical knowledge and/or skills (Figure S8). Inductive coding was used to provide a more comprehensive understanding of participants' short-answer responses (Table 5). It is important to note that in this context, “management” refers to invasive species, natural areas, or land management, not administrative oversight of projects and personnel.

TABLE 5 Example participant responses to the survey question “Are there openings in your agency/company/institution that remains unfilled due to lack of candidates with botanical skills and/or knowledge?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry/non-profit
No	No, the positions are so scarce, my experience is they are always filled. Although often we have to fill the position at an ecologist job description level versus a specific botanist job description. The latter has certain minimum college botany course credits which often are more difficult to assess by a human resources specialist since it does not have botany or plant in the course title even though it is clearly a very valuable botany course. This has become more difficult since there are virtually no university botany departments in existence any longer. For the ecologist position more candidates qualify, but often have more limited botany skills. For instance many candidates with forestry or zoology emphasis degrees qualify. Not at this time, but we have several positions that are hard to fill due to a lack of candidates with the specialized plant/horticulture knowledge we require and that is required by federal hiring rules for botanical positions. No, we will fill those positions with biologists and ecologists as long as they show potential for on the job development.	No, but we have hired seasonal staff who lacked enough plant ID skills and required extra training and support. No, we have a strong internal research team and field techs are well trained. I would like to see more independent consultants available to hire. The few that we have are may retire soon. No, there is a lack of funding to support these positions though.
Yes, other	Yes, many botanist positions have become more difficult to fill as time goes on. Universities are not teaching this discipline as much and the general feeling of plant blindness has led many would-be students to go different directions. There is no doubt in my mind that the field of botany has reached an all time low within our society. Yes, there have been times that the position was filled due to no one qualified or unfortunately since we are desperate for help when we do have the rare times we can hire a botanist and if someone does not have all the skills, but you can't afford to turn down any help or the opportunity to fill a position, I have seen positions filled with people that are not the best candidates.	We currently have seasonal positions open and are struggling to find qualified candidates. We have a job we are about to post for a Conservation Science and Land Steward. It is a general position that does not require specific botanical skills but whoever is hired will be trained on the job. Yes and no. We [are] hiring seasonal staff and attempt to find candidates with botanical skills. We often settle for less than we desire.

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 60 government and 59 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

Overall, both sectors were looking for research-based skills, such as data collection and data management, in their new hires (Figure 6 and Table 6). The government participants were looking for more natural resource management-based skills, which complements the data shown in Figure S8 indicating that a lack of scientists in environmental management is an impediment for government participants. Not surprisingly, industry-based skills were wanted by industry/non-profit participants.

FIGURE 6. Inductive coding of short answer responses provided by participants describes skills they are looking for in new hires. The y-axis shows codes found in the data set, and the x-axis indicates which sector participants were from (U.S. government, n = 59; industry/non-profit, n = 57). The data are shown graphically, with the area of each circle being representative of the percentage of participant responses connecting to each code (the exact percentage is noted within each circle). Some responses correspond to more than one code which is why the percentages of answers add up to greater than 100%. The code book is found in Method S2.

TABLE 6 Example participant responses to the survey question “What skills are you looking for in your new hires?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry
Research-based	Plant ID skills are critically important. They also need to understand plant ecology and plant physiology. An understanding of soils and plant ecophysiology are helpful. Experience analyzing potential impacts of different types of disturbances on rare plant populations is a plus. Plant identification Ability to use a dichotomous key Seed collection skills Understanding of local adaptation, genetics, seed zones	Plant identification skills, understanding of plant families and how to begin the process of identifying an unknown plant. Good working knowledge of a related plant ecosystem with field work and ability to key out plants using dichotomous keys, dissecting scope, hand lens. Basic or advanced familiarity with plant ID terminology and the types of characteristics that are helpful in identifying plants, and how to take samples and photos that capture these characteristics. Botanical specimen preparation for herbarium vouchers. Quantitative/data science skills and communication skills (about botany-related topics) It really depends on the position. For our seasonal positions managing natural areas, we hope for some experience with plant ID and using dichotomous keys.
Policy-based	No responses	My program wants people who will do monitoring and surveying and protecting, rather than just permitting. Plant population genomics, we need to have this capacity to manage genomic diversity of rare plants and living collections. Biocultural science, we currently lack a more social science oriented person to lead this area. More capacity for restoration planning and monitoring, this area only has one PhD staff and as a result becomes very focused on on/the ground work. We need to ensure future capacity for regional flora programs, which is both about taxonomic skills, but also about being able to collaborate in a fair and equal way building local capacity in the regions we work in, not just extract data and collections. Field botanical capacity in general.
Manual labor	A variety of skills are needed for the new hires which range from invasive species control/identification, herbicide use, rappelling, chainsaw, rare plant identification, pollination techniques, horticultural knowledge, etc. Treatment and removal of non native plant species with appropriate restoration efforts based on the given habitat. Field work experience. Ability and history of identifying plants. Experience working as a member of a team. Leadership experience. Ability to conduct literature reviews.	Basic horticulture/agronomy and general plant science background. Very strong genetics background. Conservation horticulture, science communication, agrostology, local botanical experience and knowledge.
Management-based	Varies hugely, depending upon the position. Generally, skills include: restoration, land management, forest ecology, field monitoring, data management, quantitative ecology, taxonomy, fundamental plant biology. Field botany skill (plant identification). Resource management (knowledge of effective methods to controlling nonnative and invasive plants). Restoration (develop and design restoration and enhancement projects).	Aquatic plant ID, as an added skill for watershed management. Terrestrial ID (trees) for land use and development skills. Organic management of plants and crops, experience with tropical plants: particularly palms, bonsai and orchids as they are more tricky to care for, propagation experience, sustainable plant practices.
Industry-based	Plant identification/taxonomy, native plant community understanding, landscaping with native plants. Field botany skill (plant identification); Resource Management (knowledge of effective methods to controlling nonnative and invasive plants); Restoration (develop and design restoration and enhancement projects). A plant biology or botanical degree with ecological/conservation focus. Need ample field skills, as well as expertise with GIS.	Plant genetics and breeding, cell biology, trait integration, genomics, we are a large organization and it depends on the role, certainly more digital phenotyping and analytics. We are always looking for proven experience and skills in ornamental horticulture. We also look for people with a working knowledge of native plants. It depends on the role, but we focus heavily on plant breeding/propagation, agronomy, plant pathology and genomics.
Education-based	Aquatic plant ID helps but again, no one at our organization knew this before a few years ago, and we have taught ourselves pretty well with guides and professional training. It's something that can be taught. Someone having knowledge of the use of aquatic herbicides would also be helpful. But we want someone who can also do outreach, be involved in algae management, etc. --a well rounded hire.	Conservation horticulture, science communication, agrostology, local botanical experience and knowledge. I would love to see people with hands on field experience, as well as those with lab experience. It will diversify the team and our perspectives, allow for better staff training, and create more educational opportunities for the public, which would support our mission.

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 59 government and 57 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

Jobs requiring researched-based skills were reported to be the most important for future success in both sectors. Interestingly, the government participants ranked jobs needing industry-based skills as important more often than their industry/non-profit peers (Figure 7). We coded these answers using a similar code book as Figure 6 as to be able to integrate these two data sets (Method S2). Selected participant responses are shown in Table 7.

FIGURE 7. Inductive coding of short answer responses provided by survey participants describes what they consider to be the top 3 most in demand jobs in plant sciences. The y-axis shows codes found in the data set, and the x-axis indicates which sector participants were from (U.S. government, n = 57; industry/non-profit, n = 50). The data are shown graphically, with the area of each circle being representative of the percentage of participant responses connecting to each code (the exact percentage is noted within each circle). Some responses correspond to more than one code. The code book is found in Method S2.

TABLE 7 Example participant responses to the survey question “What do you think are the top 3 most in demand jobs in the plant sciences?” and their associated code.

Code	Government	Industry
Research-based	Plant genetics - relating to crop science and food security; agronomics - growing food for the masses; Plant pathology - a lot of demand for plant doctors. Plant breeders /geneticists - developing new crops and varieties is increasingly needed; restoration ecologists/foresters - land management is a pressing need; landscape architects - good design and maintenance of urban green spaces is increasingly valued Here is my list: Greenhouse manager, hydroponics expert, agriculture technology expert.	Ecologist (often not botanists); conservation biologists (often not botanists); genomics/geneticists (often very lab based, lacking field and taxonomic skills) Industry has by far the most money to spend, therefore the most in-demand jobs are agriculture-related, for instance, in herbicide research, plant breeding/genetic engineering research, and commodity (food, fiber, wood, pharmaceutical, etc.) production. Restoration ecologist - this field is rapidly expanding and people with a background in plant science are essentially to successful restoration projects; naturalist - more open space and local nature centers seem to be hiring naturalists or staff with a broad biological understanding who understand ecological concepts; bioinformatics - next generation sequencing methodology is becoming more abundant in all aspects of plant science. Understanding how to handle, analyze and interpret these large data sets is essential to making good use of this technology.
Policy-based	Plant genetics for conservation - primarily this is done for recovery of rare species primarily federally listed species; plant modeling typically for rare species to prioritize focused plant surveys; plant ecology at the plant community level to address pathogens, invasives, or threats such as fire exclusion Most in demand? Probably something to do with big $$$ food or wood production. But it should be: Conservation/restoration Carbon sequestration Sustainable agriculture.	Many organizations are looking for land managers and decision makers. Foresters, land managers, and research technicians. Taxonomy - the few people with this expertise are in high demand for contract work; landscape management; climate change mitigation work In our region, they are: 1. Rare plant surveys for permitting development 2. Wetland surveys for permitting development 3. Rare plant surveys for timber harvest
Manual labor	Field technicians (very much needed); restoration practitioners (need people with skill & expertise); small and medium-scale plant farmers (needed but hard to find) All some sort of technician position: field research technician, greenhouse technician, landscape/restoration technicians.	Working for a university; working for a seed company; working in agriculture (on the farm) Horticulture is definitely a highly demanded job because experience in horticulture can be translated to botanical gardens, nurseries, agriculture, etc. Sustainable landscaping and landscape architecture are highly sought after. Anything with organic gardening and sustainable agriculture is huge, too.
Management-based	Invasive plant management. Plant genetic research. Agriculture. For early career professionals: field technicians; for later career professionals: ecologist and natural resource managers.	I don't have extensive knowledge outside of my industry, but invasive plant management is extremely important as invasive species continue to spread throughout the country. I would think that bio-engineering and crop science skills would also be in demand because of climate change It really depends on how you define plant science. I think natural areas management is one, urban agriculture is another, and crop science is a third.
Industry-based	Private consulting botanical surveys and NEPA analysis; crop science, genetic engineering of plants; horticultural science. It's the jobs where the most money is at stake that are most in demand. However, this means the skills necessary to protect plants on public lands and not necessarily taught in academia (i.e. field botany skills). Pesticide applicator: Limited aquatic herbicide applicators; plant surveyor: Surveyors needed for many studies; geneticist: Plant genetics are specialized and limited.	Horticulture is definitely a highly demanded job because experience in horticulture can be translated to botanical gardens, nurseries, agriculture, etc. sustainable landscaping and landscape architecture are highly sought after. Anything with organic gardening and sustainable agriculture is huge, too. Subject matter competent data scientist, automation expertise for greenhouse and lab for phenotyping, breeding and trait scientists with strong genetic and genomic background
Education-based	Botanist, GIS specialist and public engagement Geneticists, pathologists, teachers	Agronomist; florist; teacher Herbarium curator; professor; land manager Working for a university; working for a seed company; working in agriculture (on the farm)
Consultant-based	Restoration ecology, wetland delineation, and perhaps GIS. I see a lot of job ads for consulting firms for these types of positions. Private consulting botanical surveys and NEPA analysis; crop science, genetic engineering of plants; horticultural science. It's the jobs where the most money is at stake that are most in demand. However, this means the skills necessary to protect plants on public lands and not necessarily taught in academia (i.e. field botany skills).	No response

Note: The section of each response corresponding to the code is in bold italics. Some responses correspond to more than one code. The participants included 57 government and 50 industry/non-profit employees in the plant sciences in the United States. The code book is found in Method S2.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we provide a current snapshot of the plant science career landscape in the government and private sectors. These data provide the foundation for a new framework for determining how educational institutions should be training the next generation of government and industry botanists and guiding their career development. For decades, STEM education (including plant science education) has largely focused on infusing in students the knowledge, skills, and experiences necessary for success in graduate school and academic career paths, and many college educators are products of this educational philosophy. Recent trends, however, indicate that STEM graduate students in the United States are less interested in academic careers (Roach & Sauermann, 2017) and that Gen Z students are more focused on post-graduate careers and financial stability than previous generations (Miller & Mills, 2019; Seemiller & Grace, 2016).

To connect STEM students to careers in plant science, we recommend that more general biology courses, such as introductory biology and genetics, integrate plant-based examples when presenting foundational information. For example, students in a general biology course at Florida International University showed an increased appreciation for plants after taking an immersive botanical tour at the Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (Colon et al., 2020). Hiatt et al. (2021) report that various course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) presented in general ecology, introductory biology, and genetics courses were also shown to increase student interest and appreciation for plants at multiple colleges and universities in the southern Appalachian region of the United States. Additionally, our data set shows that almost half of our government participants are workers at the state level (Figure S2), providing another way for state schools to improve alignment: they could invite state employees to give career-based talks or provide mentoring or shadowing opportunities. Finally, it is important to remember that an interest in plant sciences starts early and that the K-12 community should be included as an intervention point. Local public outreach and community engagement by industry and non-profit organizations could serve as an early intervention outside of the formal K-12 curriculum.

Overall, our data, in conjunction with the increased demand predicted in the next 10 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c), provide an extremely positive outlook on botanical careers. Plant science careers extend across a wide variety of government and industry sectors; they encompass a workforce with diverse expertise, knowledge, and skills, and they often do not require doctoral degrees. These data allow us to better determine gaps in the current training of the next generation of botanical professionals and provide specific recommendations to our colleagues in the academic sector and recruiters in non-academic sectors.

Who are our respondents (demographics) and where are they employed?

Plant scientists surveyed here are employed across all levels of government and private sectors. Our respondents represent an array of careers and employers, indicating the diversity of options for botanists-in-training. A majority of the respondents have a bachelor or higher degree, indicating the importance of a college degree in obtaining a plant science job. Although PhD's were more represented in industry participants than government participants, at least 25% of both sectors had participants employed as plant scientists with no graduate degree, indicating our survey participants represented multiple educational backgrounds and career entry points. More than 90% of respondents from both sectors self-identified as white, whereas in the general population this number is 59% (USA Facts, 2022). The racial and ethnic disparities in our participants are consistent with that reported for the STEM workforce with a college degree (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2022) and highlight the importance of recruiting and supporting a more diverse next-generation of botanists to non-academic sectors.

What expertise, degrees, skills, and/or knowledge are necessary for a career in the botanical sciences?

The ecology category was the most common reported area of expertise for government participants; whereas plant science was the most prevalent category for industry/non-profit participants. Although our survey questions were phrased differently from those in the Kramer Report, we can still make some comparisons between the two survey's results. The percentage of government sector respondents who self-identified as ecologists in our survey is much higher than respondents who identified “ecology” as their work area in the Kramer Report (65% vs. 15%, respectively). Meanwhile, no one in the government sector in our survey self-identified as “botanist”, whereas 30% of the government respondents in the Kramer Report indicated their work area as “botany” (Kramer et al., 2010). Taken together, our results indicate that the government sector has reduced plant scientists, likely via retirement, but has gained ecologists.

Kramer et al. (2010) reported that the top activities (equivalent to skills and knowledge in our survey) that government respondents do were rare plant conservation, invasive species management, and native habitat restoration. Although similar in their conservation theme, the most common botanical skills and knowledge used by government respondents in our survey were broader in scope (e.g., trending away from rare and native specialties): understanding native habitats and populations, invasive species management, and diversity maintenance and management.

We collected data suggesting that specific expertise needed for certain jobs will be provided by employers (Table 4). Therefore, a targeted degree in botany is unlikely to be required for entry into a plant science career, and we recommend encouraging students to engage with a biology-centered major/expertise that best fits their interests and to take at least some plant science courses that align with their career goals. It is likely that this choice will lead to a botanical career.

For both sectors, bachelor's and master's degrees outpace the current hiring of PhDs. Our data challenges the perspective that an advanced degree is necessary for a career in the plant sciences. For our participants, doctoral degrees were not a requirement for entering the botanical workforce, suggesting that a wide range of plant science careers are possible for scientists with a bachelor's- or master's-level degree (Figure 2). These data are encouraging, as they suggest a multitude of pathways for young botanists to join the workforce without years of graduate training. This is especially promising for future plant scientists because our complementary academic paper found that graduate school is financially straining (Walsh et al., 2023). If non-academic recruiters publicized that they hire botanists at the bachelor's and master's level, this could attract plant science enthusiasts who otherwise may be discouraged by the financial costs of pursuing a doctoral degree before entering the workforce.

Overall, both sectors are looking for research-based skills in new hires and jobs requiring researched-based skills are reported to be the most important for future success in both sectors. Our data clearly show that research-based skills are the most important and most in demand for new hires (Figures 6 and 7). Taken together, these data suggest that research skills acquired during bachelor's- and master's-level degree programs are sufficient for entry into the botanical career sector. This is critical when advising the next generation of plant scientists, as the traditional path of completing additional years of schooling beyond a bachelor's degree may be unnecessary and may ultimately drive some candidates away from successful career paths. Informing high school students that a career path in plants is possible with just an associate's degree or bachelor's degree can also recruit more students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are looking to enter the workforce as quickly as possible because of economic constraints. We recommend academic programs be aware of this trend and share this information with all their STEM students, as this is not likely a situation unique to botanical careers.

Government and private sector respondents use different botanical knowledge and/or skills. In our study, understanding native habitats and populations, invasive species management, diversity maintenance and management were the highest ranked botanical knowledge and/or skills used by government employees. Industry participants used food science, crop science, horticulture, plant biotechnology, and understanding fundamental plant biology more than government respondents. In Kramer et al. (2010), both government and the private sector used the following as part of their employment: understanding native habitats and populations, habitat restoration, invasive species management, rare species conservation, and habitat and species monitoring. Our study found that 75% of government and 71% of private sector participants spend part of their daily work activities using their botanical knowledge, suggesting their plant science education is critical to their job performance.

Botanical knowledge acquired during an employer's education differed between sectors. In regards to botanical knowledge that employees already have, the major differences between sectors include plant pathology, plant genetics and/or genomics, horticulture, and agronomy and crop science, where more industry/non-profit participants completed these courses than their government participant peers. This suggests that participants who moved into the industry/non-profit job sector are more focused on the applications of plant science, specifically with regards to agriculture. We see the opposite with plant ecology and ecosystem science, where government participants completed more courses than their industry/non-profit peers, suggesting that the participants who moved into the government sector are more focused on plants as a part of a larger system, specifically with respect to conservation and natural areas management. In Kramer et al. (2010), botany and ecology were the most selected plant science and related courses that government survey participants took while in college and/or graduate school. These differences could be meaningful when advising future botanists of careers that match their interests. For students interested in practical application, especially in the context of agriculture and pharmacy, they should consider private sector undergraduate internships and careers upon graduation. For those interested in natural resources, conservation, ecology, and ecosystem science, they should consider government undergraduate internships and careers upon graduation.

Overall, the three courses most often taken in college and/or graduate school by our respondents included botany or field botany, ecosystem science, and plant ecology. Overall, the three most desired courses that the participants wished they had completed in college and/or graduate school were horticulture, plant conservation, and plant genetics/genomics. These data are important information to take into account when designing undergraduate curricula in botany. Our data describing the current knowledge botanical professionals have versus what knowledge they wish they had provided information on how to design a curriculum relevant for the current botanical workforce (Table S2 and Table S3). Interestingly, private sector employees wish they had taken agronomy, crop science, and ethnobotany compared to their government peers; whereas government employees wish they had taken landscape, taxon-specific botany, evolutionary biology, horticulture, and plant conservation. In addition, we report 43% of government participants taking a plant conservation course compared to 18% in the Kramer Report. Another 41% wish they had taken a course in plant conservation, suggesting that knowledge on plant conservation is increasing at the government level. In contrast, 75% of government respondents in this study took the course of botany or field botany, lower than the 90% reported by Kramer et al. (2010). Only 31% wish they took it. This decline may be because of the course not being offered as widely as a decade ago. Collectively, these findings agree with our previously discussed data showing that industry/non-profit job sectors are more focused on the applications of plant science, specifically with regards to agriculture, where government employees rely on ecology, conservation, and ecosystem knowledge more than their industry/non-profit peers.

We acknowledge that we are analyzing general trends from a small data set and that one size does not fit all. However, trends in our data sets are still valuable for informing workforce development. Professional and workforce development programs for industry should focus on application-based plant skills, such as genetic tools or agricultural applications, whereas the same type of certificate or continuing education program for government employees should focus more on natural environments or content-specific topics like specific taxon. These types of continued training and programming opportunities to enhance career development will allow both current and future professionals to develop specific skills and gain the knowledge necessary to be successful in their career sector without having to return to university as a full-time student (Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2022).

Although both sectors are concerned about the lack of knowledge of their colleagues (Figure S3; Figure S4), industry/non-profit participants were more concerned about their own lack of knowledge than their government peers. We conjecture that industry employees may feel that their own lack of knowledge is holding them back from current success or career progression, whereas the same situation might not be true for government employees whose job performance may be assessed with different metrics or who may receive more on-the-job training by their government employer.

How do current plant scientists see their professional career landscape changing?

Systemic issues remain for botanical professionals. For government participants, the top three reported challenges were lack of management funding, poorly enforced environmental laws, and lack of support staff in their institution. The industry/non-profit participants were most concerned about government inefficiency. Funding for programs/research remains a significant impediment since the Kramer Report was published (Figures S3 and S4). In Kramer et al. (2010), for government, lack of management funding was also identified as the top impediment. Non-government organization respondents thought lack of management funding (89%) was the largest impediment, followed by lack of research funding (83%). Although we wish our data provided a more optimistic outlook, funding remains an ongoing challenge for botanical professionals in all sectors, including academia (Walsh et al., 2023).

Synthesis between academic and non-academic results

Over the last 5 to 10 years, both government and industry sectors report full- and part-time positions remaining steady. These results indicate that government and private sector careers are stable alternatives to academic careers for newly graduated botanists. Despite having a stable and growing demand of employees, the private sector underperformed in attracting graduate students compared to academic and government careers (Walsh et al., 2023). Forming partnerships with academic institutions may allow industry and non-profit employers to raise student awareness of career opportunities in the private sector and attract and recruit new graduates. It is essential to form public–private or academic–government partnerships to foster communication among industry, government, and academia to create a pipeline of talent that fits the needs and skills for the jobs that exist and the jobs of the future.

One of the benefits of these types of partnerships is in providing internships and opportunities for real-world work and research while students are completing their degrees. Providing future botanical professionals with research-based skills is imperative (Figures 6 and 7), and we found that graduate students undervalue their research skills compared to computer programing and networking (Walsh et al., 2023). Internships are essential workforce development programs that provide professional skill development without requiring advanced degrees and facilitate networking, allowing multiple entrance and exit ramps for STEM careers. Providing support for multiple points of entry and exits into STEM careers is essential for broadening and deepening education and training for students outside of academia. Plant sciences, in particular in industry and government/non-profit sectors, need to move away from the historic expectation that students should participate in unpaid or volunteer internships because it provides opportunities for skill development. Instead, to level the playing field, paid internships are critical for including and supporting underrepresented and underserved students (Collins, 2020; Merlin-Knoblich et al., 2022; Rogers et al., 2021; Zilvinskis et al., 2020). This recommendation is important, as our participant demographics in this study suggest a lack of diversity among current botanical professionals (section 3.1), and inclusively engaging more young scientists in the plant sciences will lead to increased diversity.

In addition to building important research-based skills, internships and mentorships shape STEM identity, which leads to resilience and perseverance in the face of career challenges (Atkins et al., 2020). Successful internship programs rely on good mentors; therefore, it is equally important for organizations to provide mentorship training for plant scientists already in careers, as well as for undergraduates who will one day become mentors. For example, the Bayer University program through Bayer Crops Science provides one-on-one mentoring of graduate students with industry scientists, which allows graduate students to learn more about industry jobs. Formal professional development mentorship training provides opportunities for mentors to develop and implement best practices. During the workshops, mentors should develop a mentorship philosophy while helping their mentee develop an Individual Development Plan (Chang & Saw, 2021). Companies and agencies may need to incentivize mentors to attend these professional development workshops and create a corporate culture that emphasizes the importance of good mentorship. It is critical that mentors are trained using the latest workforce development data available, such as the data we present here, so that they are not giving outdated career advice to young scientists.

The rising cost of academia in the United States may also provide an opportunity to leverage partnerships with academic institutions to offset the cost of degrees that are tailored to careers at particular companies. Alternative financial programs for students, such as co-ops and paid internships with government or industry partners, allow students to offset the cost of their academic programs while learning about and gaining experience in the field. For example, Bayer Crop Science offers fall and spring semesters co-op program where students work full time while earning class credit. Summer internship programs are typically full time, 6- to 16-week programs, and are popular at a number of industry companies and government agencies. Finding partnerships that allow for students to earn while they learn can effectively create a pipeline of skilled workers.

Nearly all of the respondents to the survey were based in the United States, which limits our ability to project the skills identified on career needs in the rest of the world. However, we would suggest that plant science careers vary in limited ways between the United States and the rest of the world. A few of the key differences include the funding sources and other resources available to plant scientists in the United States. The funding available for botanical/plant research in the United States is often provided by government agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as private foundations and organizations. In other parts of the world, funding may be provided by different government agencies or organizations with different priorities and focus, under different traditional plant use influences (e.g., Chong & Xu, 2014). Because the United States has a large number of universities and research institutions with strong botanical research programs, as well as a wide variety of botanical gardens, arboreta, and other resources, these can be leveraged to support plant-focused research in ways that may be limited in other countries, particularly low- and middle-income countries with more limited resource availability that can support botanical research.

Limitations

Although we can draw many comparisons between our data and the Kramer Report and extrapolate from the two data sets how plant-based careers are changing, we recognize that we are not fully comparing apples-to-apples. For example, we made significant updates to the structure of the Kramer Report survey, including adding demographic data and qualitative questions. Although our data set was smaller, it also encompasses a larger range of botanical jobs, giving us a wider breadth of understanding about the differences between different types of plant-focused careers. Additionally, we recognize that, although our participant population is gender balanced, it is skewed as highly white with most participants holding a Ph.D. We hope that our recommendations from these data will help change this pattern and broaden participation in plant science careers to include people from different racial and educational backgrounds.

Conclusion

Collectively, we show that it is possible to enter into a plant-science career with a bachelor's- or master's-level degree. We show that future botanical professionals can have a wide variety of expertise, but that certain types of botanical knowledge align better with either the government or industry sectors. Research-based skills are critical and are in high demand across sectors. We present these data and all findings to our academic colleagues and further discuss their implications in our companion manuscript (Walsh et al., 2023).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Hong Liu, Christopher Baraloto, and Lisa L. Walsh conceived the project. Lisa L. Walsh, Kristine Callis-Duehl, Alisa A. Hove, Hong Liu, Melissa McCartney, and Christopher Baraloto were responsible for developing the survey for data collection. Brian J. Sidoti, Kathryn M. Parsley, Lisa L. Walsh, Melissa McCartney, Hannah Bruce-Opris, Roxana Gonzalez, David Ospina, and Mia Uzcategui performed all data analysis. Brian J. Sidoti, Kathryn M. Parsley, Lisa L. Walsh, and Melissa McCartney drafted the manuscript. Lisa L. Walsh, Kristine Callis-Duehl, Alisa A. Hove, and Hong Liu are responsible for the collaborative discussion of approach and editing of the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the members of the Seeing Green RCN for their support with developing and distributing the botanical capacity survey. We thank all of our participants for their time and their thoughtfulness with their responses. This study was funded by NSF 1920008 and an internal grant from the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (Danforth 22028).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.