Conceptual framework defines botany around basic plant science and conservation

A conceptual article in Italian Botanist proposes a geometric framework for distinguishing botany from agronomy and medicine. It defines botany as a biological discipline in which basic plant science constitutes a predominant component, defined as more than 50 percent, and uses that threshold to clarify the roles of botanists and botanical gardens.

The proposed approach responds to an increasingly diverse research landscape. Cambridge Dictionary defines botany as “the scientific study of plants,” while Treccani describes it as the branch of biology that studies plant organisms. Contemporary plant research, however, includes basic and applied studies of plant uses and extracts, including work in agronomy and medicine that may be described as “applied botany.”

Botany’s disciplinary history is also closely connected with its use and development. The word “botany” was coined by Homer in The Iliad in the eighth century BC, according to the article. Botany became an independent science from medicine during the Renaissance, while the cultivation of plants for food and aesthetic purposes dates back at least 11,700 years. These overlapping histories complicate any attempt to assign plant-related work to one field.

The article cites signs of institutional change in academic botany. Pure botany is reportedly taught less frequently, basic research has become rarer because of funding limitations, and applied research has attracted greater financial support. Some scholars have described these developments as a claim for “the end of botany,” while others report that foundational subjects such as nomenclature are receiving less attention. At the same time, “botany” and “botanist” are increasingly being replaced in academia by “plant biology” and “plant biologist.”

Outside universities, the terminology is used more broadly, sometimes for anyone working with plants for any purpose. Agronomists, arboriculturists, gardeners, herbalists, phytotherapists and plant pharmacologists may all fall under the informal label. The article argues that this broad usage can obscure professional distinctions and lead members of the public to seek advice from people whose training may not include a strong foundation in botany. Botanical gardens face a related perception problem, as their scientific functions may be mistaken for those of ornamental gardens or parks.

To represent the overlap among botany, agronomy and medicine, the article uses a ternary plot, a barycentric diagram in which three variables sum to a constant and their relative proportions are represented as positions within an equilateral triangle. Specialized research areas occupy overlapping positions rather than fitting neatly into one discipline. The author identifies a “Triangle of Botany,” defined as the area in which basic plant science remains the predominant component.

Under the proposed definitions, a botanist is a professional or scientist whose primary research focus is basic research on plant organisms or research applied to nature conservation. A botanical garden is a space dedicated to cultivating, conserving, studying and displaying plants, based primarily on scientific principles grounded in basic research, conservation research or both. This emphasis on documented living collections, scientific research, conservation, display and education broadly accords with the definition used by Botanic Gardens Conservation International.

The framework has several stated implications. Researchers focused mainly on the uses of plants rather than plants themselves would be classified as agronomists or medical researchers rather than botanists. A facility displaying and documenting only crops would be a crop collection field rather than a botanic garden, while one devoted only to ornamental plants would be a garden or park. In wider society, the proposed test is whether expertise concerns plants themselves or their uses, with the latter associated with agricultural, horticultural, herbal and pharmacological professions.

The article also distinguishes interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. Interdisciplinarity integrates multiple disciplines into one research activity, whereas multidisciplinarity studies a topic through several disciplinary perspectives at once; both remain within disciplinary research. Transdisciplinarity extends beyond and integrates disciplines, represented in the framework by a central region in which no single discipline dominates. Under this classification, phytochemistry, plant biotechnology and the biology of agronomic and forest plants retain a predominant botanical component, whereas transdisciplinary work includes topics such as alimurgical plants and aerobiology. Research dominated by agronomic or medical components is characterized as interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary agronomic or medical research rather than applied botany. The contribution is a proposed conceptual classification, supported by illustrative examples rather than an empirical evaluation of how consistently practitioners or institutions meet its definitions.

Subject of Research: A conceptual framework for defining botany, botanists and botanical gardens

Article Title: Some claim for the end of Botany… but what is Botany today?

Article References: Peruzzi, L. (2025). Some claim for the end of Botany… but what is Botany today?. Italian Botanist, 19, 15-20. https://doi.org/10.3897/italianbotanist.19.145382

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/italianbotanist.19.145382

Keywords: botany, plant science, botanical gardens, agronomy, basic research, conservation, interdisciplinarity, discipline boundaries, plant nomenclature, Some, claim, today