Native Plants at the Georgia Tech EcoCommons

Introduction

The effort to bring greenspace and restore natural ecology to the Georgia Tech campus can be seen in the EcoCommons, a park built near the Keneda building and the Center Street Apartments. One of the goals of the EcoCommons is to restore Georgia’s natural plant life to Atlanta. Today, we’re going to look at some of the native plants which have been brought back to the EcoCommons.

A smaller variety of the bald cypress tree at the Georgia Tech EcoCommons, known as the pond cypress.Bald Cypress Trees

Bald cypresses are trees native to much of the southeastern United States. They’re hardy and versatile, and can grow in all kinds of soil environments. This, along with their lovely red and orange needles during the fall, makes them popular plants for decorative purposes. Other common names for the bald cypress include swamp cypress, white cypress, tidewater red cypress, gulf cypress and red cypress.

In the wild, bald cypresses are typically found in wet, swampy areas. They can be identified by their large, spread out needles.

A close up of baldcypress needles in autumn.FUN FACTS

  • The oldest bald cypress tree (that we know of) has been alive since 605 BCE. That’s a 2627 year old tree!
    • The site of the tree is actually a secret – park rangers don’t want visitors vandalizing it.
  • The bald cypress is the state tree of Louisiana.
  • Bald cypress wood has historically been marketed for its resistance to water, which makes it useful in wet areas.
  • Around a bald cypress tree, it’s common to see what are called cypress knees – wooden outgrowths from the ground. They actually extend upward from the main trunk’s root system. They look like small stumps coming out of the ground, although they’re still connected to a “main” tree.

A zoomed in image of the wooden knobs that extend from the roots of cypress trees, known as cypress knees.Bald cypress trees are famous for their fall colors – here’s a larger bald cypress off of the Georgia Tech campus in November. These native plants are a great choice for people looking for decorative trees that are ecologically beneficial to the local environment.

A baldcypress tree with its fall russet needles.Cardinal Lobelias

A shot of cardinal lobelias in bloom.The cardinal flower, lobelia cardinalis, is a red flower, belonging to the bellflower family, that is native to most of the United States (except for far Northwestern states). It primarily lives in moist areas, such as stream banks, ditches, and lake shores.

FUN FACTS

  • Excellent for hummingbird and butterfly gardens. This plant attracts many native pollinators, so it’s a great addition to your yard or garden if you’d like to see more hummingbirds and butterflies.
  • You can find varieties of the cardinal flower with pink and white flowers, although these are mostly sold in nurseries for decorative plants.
  • Every part of the cardinal flower is poisonous when ingested – don’t eat it!

New England Aster

A New England aster plant with purple flowers.The New England aster, Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, is a perennial flower that is a native plant to much of the northeastern United States. It typically blooms from late summer through fall, with asters blooming in late August to early November depending on the region. New England asters are typically found in moist environments, particularly in wetlands. However, it has been found in dry soils as well.

FUN FACTS

  • New England asters are a favorite flower of the monarch butterfly! These flowers are known to attract the monarch butterflies during their migration south for the winter.
  • The word “aster” comes from the Greek word ἀστήρ, meaning “star”. Aster shares a language history with astronaut and astronomy.
  • Here in Georgia, New England asters are considered “Critically Imperiled” by NatureServe – this means that their natural range has been reduced significantly by human activity.
  • Domestically, you can find New England asters in all sorts of pinks and purples at nurseries for your garden or yard.

Blue Mistflower

Blue mistflowers close up.The blue mistflower, conoclinium coelestinum, is a perennial flowering plant in the Asteraceae family. Blue mistflowers are widespread throughout North America, and can be found from Ontario, Canada to Tepoztlan, Mexico. It’s commonly grown in gardens, and flowers from July through November each year.

FUN FACTS

  • Blue mistflowers are hardy plants that can spread quickly – be warned if you want them in your garden! They’re very capable of choking out their neighbors because their root systems spread out.
  • These flowers are known for their ability to attract pollinators, which makes them great for supporting local ecology.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.