Handbook of Plant Science
Handbook of Plant ScienceK. Roberts ed. 2007.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd. £250 (2-volume
hardback). 1645 pp.
At a bookshelf-bending 4·5 kg, a bank-balance-denting £250, edited by a highly distinguished plant scientist, and released in the publisher's bicentenary year, you are entitled to expect something really special from this Handbook of Plant Science (HoPS). However, on reading in the front matter that HoPS ‘re-publishes a selection of recent and topical articles from Wiley's landmark [internet-based] Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS)’ I wondered if there really could be anything special about this hard-copy collection. However, I was initially reassured by the Preface, which explains that the Editorial Advisory Board (all from the John Innes Centre, UK) commissioned new peer-reviewed articles for HoPS to fill in gaps in the existing plant-related ELS articles. So, something new and therefore special was in prospect after all.
In view of the enormity of present-day plant science, an editorial decision was taken ‘to restrict the bulk of the articles to areas where molecular and cellular data are of central importance’ (Preface, p. xxiii). Thus, most of ELS's more botanical or plant ecological articles are not represented here. HoPS' 255 articles are arranged in 12 sections across the two volumes, as follows. Volume 1: Introduction (2 articles), Functional Plant Anatomy (24), Plant Tissues and Cells (20), Plant Cell Biology (20), Plant Growth and Development (35), Molecular Genetics and Biotechnology (37); Volume 2: Evolution (7), Plant Primary Metabolism (20), Plant Secondary Metabolism (26), Photosynthesis (23), Plants and their Environment (25), Plants and Other Organisms (16). Volume 2 concludes with 57 4-column pages of Index. The articles are assigned to one of three levels – Introductory (primarily for undergraduates and non-specialists), Advanced (providing more detailed discussions of specialist subjects, equivalent to that in graduate-level texts), or Opinion (which provide a platform for debate where controversial and ‘hot topics’ can be discussed). These three levels presumably equate to ELS's Introductory, Advanced and Keynote categories. The length of the articles varies considerably, from 1·67 pages (Root Nodules) to a mighty 14·5 pages (Evolution of Flowering Plants). Further reading/References, although provided for all articles, also fluctuate widely; from nearly 5 pages' worth (Oxidative Stress and Redox Signalling) to just five items (Respiration).
A major goal of HoPS has been to produce a ‘comprehensive and authoritative resource for teachers, students and researchers’ (Preface, p. xxiii). Unfortunately, from a pedagogic/authoritative point of view, HoPS has failings. For example: no scale is present on many of the micrographs, e.g. Fig. 1a (p. 1257) showing isolated chloroplasts. Also surprising is the absence of acknowledgements at the end of most articles. Whilst the prose is the intellectual effort of the named authors, most are also working scientists whose funding bodies would expect to be acknowledged. Many of the tables (e.g. Table 1, p. 240) do not acknowledge the authors whose work is reported. How are students to learn best practice and avoid accusations of plagiarism unless they have good examples to follow, and can see where to look for more information?
I failed to find any of the promised Opinion articles during my scrutiny of HoPS. These would be especially useful for initiating class discussion and encouraging students to delve deeper into controversial and hot topics in plant science. If present, they are very hard to find; why aren't articles identified as ‘Introductory’, ‘Advanced’ or ‘Opinion’ in the table of contents? The references are extremely up-to-date in only some of the articles. For example, the article on the Plasma Membrane includes references from 2007, with the oldest reference being from 2004. This is presumably a hallmark of a new article commissioned specifically for HoPS. Several other articles also have the appearance of being ‘new’ based on the recentness of the references and topicality of the subject matter (e.g. Abiotic Stress, Ozone and Reactive Oxygen Species, and Physiological Responses to Climate and Environmental Change). Indeed, a search on ELS reveals that the ‘on-line dates’ for these are 16/04/07, 16/07/07 and 28/09/07, respectively, implying that they really are new. For the most part, though, one suspects that the HoPS articles are simply reprintings of often relatively old, existing versions of ELS items, although all in HoPS display a 2007 publication date, which is misleading. This is a particular issue for the Plant Cytoskeleton article where the most recent cited reference is from 1997 and whose ELS version has an on-line date of 19/04/01. Thus, it looks as if this HoPS item has not been updated since 2001. This is to be regretted and probably explains why the article only deals with microtubules and microfilaments. In the intervening period a tremendous amount of information has been accrued regarding not only actin microfilaments and associated molecules (e.g. Staiger et al., 2000), and microtubules (e.g. Nick, 2000), but also a great variety of other cytoskeletal components and their roles in plant cell growth and differentiation (e.g. Hussey, 2004). This apparent lack of updating means the important work of Paredez et al. (2006) that visualises cellulose deposition and implicates microtubules in the process is not cited. It also explains why exciting aspects such as the role of myosin (which does not even merit an index entry) in gating of plasmodesmata and the development of symplasmic domains and long-distance regulation of development, etc. (e.g. Balu
ka et al., 2006) are not covered. Was this simply considered too much to include in an introductory article? If so, why is there no Advanced article on the cytoskeleton? In its absence there is little on this topic to make HoPS special.
Another peculiarity of HoPS – which directly leads on from the cytoskeleton example – is the absence of an article dealing with cellulose synthesis. Surely, this topic is one of the most deserving of a separate comprehensive, authoritative account in a modern plant science tome? It is certainly one where molecular and cellular data are of central importance. Another curious omission that contradicts any claim to comprehensiveness is the absence of an article on Gibberellins. This is especially inexplicable given that the other classical plant hormones are each represented by separate articles.
Although HoPS seems outrageously expensive, several separate textbooks would be needed to provide the equivalent range and detail – albeit often in summary form – so HoPS may be a cheaper alternative. However, since ELS's on-line articles are regularly updated, HoPS will be quickly ‘out-of-date’ – and more so than textbooks, which are often revised and updated. In this regard, HoPS' main competitor is ELS (although ELS is not cheap).
Generally, presentational aspects are good, but they could be improved. There are some strange categorizations of articles. For example, the Xylem, and Phloem Structure and Function articles are found in the Primary Metabolism section rather than in the Plant Tissues and Cells section. Within sections there is also some odd ordering; e.g. the Introductory article on Photosynthesis is placed over a third of the way through the Photosynthesis section, and after several Advanced articles. It is difficult to see the logic in this. Colour plates are always welcome and those in HoPS are collected together in a single place within each volume, and represent colour versions of selected monochrome images that appear within the articles. However, why position them part-way through articles? It would have been more sensible to site them at the end of articles, where there is a natural break. I also noticed a number of errors throughout the text. Examples include Fig. 1 (p. 312) where image (c) should not be entitled xylem, whereas (d) should be entitled xylem, not phloem as stated; Table 1 (p. 1372) includes NH4SO4 rather than (NH4)2SO4; Table 4 (p. 1375) has two entries for SO2 (in several rows) but one of these should surely be SO3.
As a stand-alone publication HoPS is an impressive compilation of selected aspects of modern plant science. However, at £250 who is going to buy it? A few departmental libraries may be tempted but students or their teachers are unlikely customers. This is unfortunate because the subject matter deserves to be widely available and read. But, HoPS is not a stand-alone publication. It is a collection of articles culled from the 4136 held on-line at ELS (ELS, 2007). Overall, HoPS is not all bad, but I have serious misgivings about its worth – and not just in terms of the cost. If you do not have access to ELS, HoPS provides a reasonably ‘comprehensive and authoritative resource...’. And if you have £250 to spare you may even consider buying it. But is HoPS special? Not quite.
E-mail n.chaffey{at}bathspa.ac.uk
LITERATURE CITED
-
Balu
ka F, Volkmann D, Barlow P. Cell–cell channels (2006) New York: Landes Bioscience and Springer Science + Business Media.ELS. (2007) http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/0470-01590X/home/WhatsNew.html[access date 4 December 2007].
Hussey PJ. The plant cytoskeleton in cell differentiation and development (2004) vol. 10. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Annual Plant Reviews.
Nick P. Plant microtubules: potential for biotechnology (2000) Berlin: Springer.
Paredez AR, Somerville CR, Ehrhardt DW. Visualization of cellulose synthase demonstrates functional association with microtubules. In: Sciencexpress (2006) 1–6. 8 April.
Staiger C, Baluka F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Actin: a dynamic framework for multiple plant cell functions (2000) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||