Tag, You’re It! Results of Survey of Labeling Techniques

of American Public Gardens By

Greg Payton Director of Living Collections

The Dawes Arboretum (IrisBG Reference Garden) Newark, Ohio USA

Excellence in Plant Collections Management Symposium

October 16-18, 2018 Vancouver, British Columbia

by

Jaime Frye – Newfields in Indianapolis, Indiana

Sara Helm-Wallace – Trustees of Reservations in Boston, Massachusetts

Both IrisBG users!

At the

Results of a 2018 survey of labeling practices of American Public Gardens Association member institutions

Survey Dissemination

Survey released 8 January 2018 to APGA PN&T and Plant Collections communities.

Only APGA member responses used.

Survey closed February 9th.

Diversity in Responding Institutions

8; 10%

8; 10%

17; 21%

19; 24%

17; 22%

10; 13%

Responding Garden Sizes (By Operating Budget)

≤150,000

$150,000-$399,999

$400,000-$999,999

$1,000,000-$2,990,000 $3,000,000-$9,990,000 Above $10M

Represents 12.5% of all APGA member gardens. Higher participation rate from gardens with larger budgets (40.5% from $3 – 9.99 million and 77% in > %10 million range.) This could skew results to favor large budget gardens.

8 8 17

19

17

10

228 118 103

74

25

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% A

PGA

Inst

itutio

ns p

er S

ize

Cat

egor

y

Institution Size (By Operating Budget)

APGA Institutions By Size

Non-Responding Institutions Responding Institutions

79 responses from 36 US states and Canadian provinces. California and Pennsylvania had highest with 12 and 6 respectively. North Carolina and Ohio next with 4 each.

22; 28%

16; 20%

14; 18%

11; 14%

9; 11%

7; 9%

Responding Job Titles

Curator

Misc. Plant Records

Supervisor/Hort Manager

Director/CEO

Other

Horticulturist/Gardener

Staffing & Supplemental Help

Supplemental Help

38; 48%

9; 12%

27; 34%

5; 6%

None

Students Only

Volunteers Only

Both Students & Volunteers

Little correlation between institution size and supplemental assistance.

3; 4%

47; 59%

29; 37%

# Staff Responsible for Labeling Plants

0

1

>1

68; 86%

10; 13%

1; 1%

Staff Hours Dedicated to Labels per Week

< 20 Hours/Week 20-40 Hours/Week >40 Hours/Week

Gardens with more staffing were in higher budget categories.

≤150,000 $150,000-$399,999

$400,000-$999,999

$1,000,000-$2,990,000

$3,000,000-$9,990,000 Above $10M

>40 hours per week 1 20-40 hours per week 1 2 2 5 <20 hours per week 8 7 17 17 15 4

8 7

17 17 15

4

1

2

2

5

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# R

spon

dant

s

Budget

Staff Hours Spent Labeling v. Budget

>40 hours per week 20-40 hours per week <20 hours per week

Label Damage

21; 51%

8; 20%

6; 15%

3; 7%

1; 3% 1; 2% 1; 2%

Types of Display Label Damage Cited (some responses showed multiple damage

modes)

Squirrel People Mowers and Equipment Large Animals Birds Insects Frost Heaves

41% of gardens experienced some form of label damage.

They prefer the part of the label with the accession number on it!

I find hanging tags get less damage than fixed labels. Are there squirrels in Europe??

Green Bay Botanical Garden

Morton Arboretum

Denver Botanical Garden

55; 28%

30; 16%

50; 26%

25; 13%

14; 7%

20; 10%

Additional Methods of Providing Plant Information

interpretive panels

plant lists

other brochures and literature mobile applications

audio tours

other

Corner Types

34

6

13

1 0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

rounded square

# In

stan

ces

Corner Types

Accession Label Corner Types

Sum of Purchased Sum of Fabricated

21 10

1

19

21

3 0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Rounded Square Other

# In

stitu

tions

Corner Type

Display Label Corner Types

Sum of Fabricated Sum of Purchased

Label Materials

27

8

16

7

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

# In

stitu

tions

Material Types

Display Label Materials

Fabricated Purchased

10

1 1 2 1

34

3 4

2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Aluminum Brass Plastic Steel Zinc

# In

stan

ces

Material Types

Accession Label Materials

Sum of Fabricated Sum of Puchased

Label Storage

Denver Botanic Garden

Huntington

Arboretum at Penn State

More common to bring in annual and perennial labels.

50% do not store labels for re-use.

Label Maintenance

18

21

9

3 1

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

# In

stitu

tiohn

s

Frequency of Maintenance

Accession Label Maintenance Frequency

39

10

6 7 4

7

2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

# In

stitu

tions

Frequency of Maintenance

Frequency of Display Label Maintenance

93% expect > 3 year lifetime.

General consensus is frequency is inadequate.

Jon Peter 2018

Display Labels

Display Labels Use

76; 96%

3; 4%

Yes No

Display Label Fields 75 75

58

51

31

18

8 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Latin name common name family name native range other plant source/collector

information

plant facts/cultural

information

image/drawing

Inst

ance

s C

ited

Information Field

5

7

12

30

14

6

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

>6 lines

6 lines

5 lines

4 lines

3 lines

2 lines

1 line

# Instances

Line

s of

Info

rmat

ion

Use

d

Lines of Information Used per Display Label

Chicago Botanic Garden

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

7

8

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Garamond

Trade Gothic Condensed

Georgia

Century Gothic bold

helv1

Constantia

Lucida Fax

Arial Narrow

Mr. Eaves

Courier New

Proprietary serif font analogous to Times New Roman

Century Schoolbook

Sylfaen

Gothic

fruitger

US Block

Calibri

Helvetica

Times New Roman

Arial

Unsure

Institutional Use in Display Labels

Font

Fonts Used in Display Labels

Most respondents unsure of fonts in use, likely due to them having them manufactured elsewhere.

42

15

9 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

stakes hanging on wire

drilled into woody plants

other

# In

stan

ces

Installation Methods

Display Label Installation Methods

3

2

1 1 1 1

0

1

2

3

4

wooden base

attached to woody plants - other

dual lock tape

plastic attachment

on rock on fences

# In

stan

ces

Cite

d

Installation Methods

Other Display Label Installation Methods

Accessibility Considerations

60; 80%

15; 20%

Italicization on Display Labels

Yes No

Typeface & Font

Text Length

Capitalization

Italics

Placement

Those who don’t cite machine capabilities.

Display Label Acquisition

43; 56% 21; 28%

12; 16%

made & built in house purchase complete product purchase label only

3 3 5

12 13

7 5 4

5

4 2

1

5

3 2

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# In

stitu

tions

Institution Size (By Operating Budget)

Display Label Acquisition by Institution Size

purchase label purchase complete make & build

Fabricated Display Labels Machine Types

21; 50% 16; 38%

1; 2% 2; 5%

2; 5%

laser engraver

rotary engraver heat transfer

photolabel

4,02

5 4,5 4,38

4 3,56

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Aver

age

Satis

fact

ion

Rat

ing

Machine Types

Display Label Machine Satisfaction

Laser Engravers

7; 35%

5; 25%

4; 20%

2; 10%

1; 5% 1; 5%

Laser Engraver Brands Used for Display Labels

Epilog

Universal Laser Systems Gravograph

Versalaser

LaserPro

5

4,43 4

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Universal Laser Systems

Epilog Gravograph Av

erag

e B

rand

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Laser Engraver Brand

Average Satisfaction for Top Three Laser Engraver Brands

Rotary Engravers

6; 38%

4; 25%

2; 13%

1; 6%

1; 6%

1; 6% 1; 6%

Rotary Engraver Brands Used for Display Labels

Vision

Gravograph

Xenetech

New Hermes Suregrave

4

3,5 3,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Xenetech Gravograph Vision

Aver

age

Bra

nd S

atis

fact

ion

Rotary Engraver Brand

Average Satisfaction for Top Three Rotary Engraver Brand

Purchased Display Labels Vendors

11; 52%

6; 29%

2; 9%

1; 5% 1; 5%

Lark Label

Nameplate and Panel Technology Precision Signs and Labels

Colmet Metal Sign

Accession Labels

Accession Label Use

55; 70%

7; 9%

16; 21%

Yes (differs from display labels) Yes (same as display labels)

Only 79% of surveyed institutions use an accession label of some format…!

Accession Label Quantities by Institution Size

4 6

7 6

1

3

6

5

3 1

2

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

# In

stitu

tions

Institutional Size (by operational budget)

>2000 500-2000 <500

Accession Label Acquisition

41; 74%

1; 2%

13; 24%

made and built in house

purchase entirely finished product

Accession Label Fonts

37; 69%

17; 31%

Label Fonts

Unsure/Machine Standard

All others

8; 15%

46; 85%

Acc. Label Italicization

Yes No

29, 81%

3; 8%

4; 11%

Why Not Italicize?

Machine/Process Limitations

Not Public

Accession Label Information 54 53

20 19 18 15

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

# In

stitu

ions

Why wouldn’t everybody use the accession number on an accession label?

Accession Label Attachments

13

13

19

22

37

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

# Instances

Atta

chm

ent M

etho

ds

on thin wire on stakes on thick wire driven into the ground drilled into woody plants other (please specify)

Fabricated Accession Label Machines

30; 77%

6; 15%

1; 2% 1; 3% 1; 3%

Embosser Laser Engraver Metal Photolabel Rotary Engraver P-Touch

10; 36%

9; 32%

3; 11%

3; 11%

1; 3% 1; 3% 1; 4% Embosser Brands

CIM

Datacard

NewBold Addressograph

Matica

Data Technology Systems

4,3

3,66 3,5 3,33

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Aver

age

Satis

fact

ion

Embosser Brand

Average Satisfaction of Top 4 Embosser Brands

Purchased Accession Labels Vendors

1; 10%

4; 40%

1; 10%

1; 10%

1; 10%

1; 10%

1; 10%

Arkwood Products

Damon Co.

Data Technology Systems Denver Botanic Gardens IdentiSys Inc.

Labeling Equipment and Examples at the Dawes Arboretum

Presented By Greg Payton, Director of Living Collections

TEC TXP3/5 Thermal Transfer Printer

Thermal Transfer Pot Tags and Slip-on Labels

Thermal Transfer Pot Tags and Slip-on Labels

Matica C320 Metal Tag Embosser

.016” Mill Finish Aluminum 3.5 X 1.725” (~90X44mm)

Gravograph LS100 CO2 Laser Engraver

2X4” (~50X100mm) black over white core Display Labels

Display Label Mounting Techniques

Display/Accession Tag Mounting

…All from IrisBG via Word Mail Merge!