Host an Event Volunteer Join Tickets

Support the plant database you love!



The Research Literature database was created and funded by the Florida Wildflower Foundation. Use the search features below to find scientific articles on native wildflowers that are commercially available or used in restoration projects.

About Research Literature Frequently Asked Questions Related Links

Search research literature:

See a list of all citations

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are only certain species included in the database? Why can't I find the species I'm looking for?

There are 289 species on the plant list - less than 10 percent of Florida's native plants, many of which are also found in the Southeastern U.S. The list primarily consists of flowering, herbaceous species that are commercially available or used in restoration. Nomenclature follows the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (

The plant list features species sold by the Florida Wildflowers Growers Cooperative, plants listed on the Florida Association of Native Nurseries website, and plants included in Florida Wildflower Foundation grant reports. The list was then refined by removing species that were: (1) not flowering plants including gymnosperms, ferns and fern allies, and nonvascular plants; (2) hybrids; or (3) cultivars if species was already included at the species level. Plants were generally included at the species level. In a few cases, a plant was included at the infraspecific level (variety or subspecies). The list was further refined by removing many trees and large shrubs. While these are important species, they are not considered wildflowers

Are all of the species in the database native?

While the vast majority of plants included are native to Florida, a few species are questionably native. Determining whether a species is native depends on the criteria used, therefore making the determination subjective. The following species in the database are considered non-native by the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants: Phlox drummondii, Coreopsis basalis, and Papaver rhoeas. However, some consider these to be native.

Why are only certain articles or references included in the database? How was the list of articles compiled?

Articles were compiled from different sources including: Web of Science, Google and Google Scholar, Florida Wildflower Foundation grant reports, and suggestions from the FWF research committee.

A Web of Science search was conducted using species name "genus species". If there were no results by species name, a search on genus name was usually conducted. If there were many results per species (>200), filters by subject area were applied in Web of Science to narrow results to the most applicable articles. Proceedings and abstracts from meetings were included in the Web of Science search, but only included in the literature database if the abstract was accessible. If there were no relevant records for a species on Web of Science, a Google and Google Scholar search was conducted.

The resulting articles from the Web of Science and Google searches were further reviewed to determine relevance to the literature database. Articles selected for inclusion were tagged with the species name, article type/subject, habitat, and links to locate the article on the internet. A short summary for each article is then written.

Why aren't there any articles available for some species?

In some cases, we weren't able to find relevant articles for a species. If you have an article you would like to see included, we welcome your suggestions! Please suggest literature to include by writing [email protected]. A more common reason is that some of our native species have not been studied, or if they have, the work has not been published. Knowing which species are in need of more research is one of the intended outcomes of this literature database.

Why are some articles not directly relevant to the Florida Wildflower Foundation's research and education programs?

For the most part, articles most relevant to the Florida Wildflower Foundation's mission were chosen. However, for species with little published information, some tangentially relevant articles were included to serve as a starting point for further research. We welcome your suggestions.

Why do some species have a lot of articles and other species have none?

Some species have more published research than others. Generally, species that are wide-ranging, dominant within a habitat, or used as ornamentals have more published research than species with a narrow range or little (or undiscovered) ornamental value.

What nomenclature do you follow? Why is a species listed under a different scientific name?

Nomenclature follows the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. The USDA PLANTS database and the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Native Plant Information Network both follow the USDA PLANTS codes associated with each species in the Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. It is important to note that much of the matching among databases and the research conducted to find articles was done on scientific name rather than taxonomic concept. This could mean that information included for a species (e.g., an article or link to a website) may actually refer to a broader or narrower circumscription of a species. This is especially true for species that have had significant taxonomic changes. For example, if one species is now considered two species, information published under the original species name may apply to one or both of the new species. A list of synonyms is provided for each species.

Where can I find information about a species?

In the search boxes on the bottom left, go to "Choose from our species set to see plant information with a list of references". Select the species from the drop down list. If you don't see a particular species, it is either not included in the database or it is listed under a different (synonymous) scientific name (see nomenclature).

Go back