The Occupy Mars Learning Adventure

Training Jr. Astronauts, Scientists & Engineers

Leave a comment

How to practice living on Mars

Final Crew Report
Mars 160 Mission (FMARS)
Summer 2017

Hello from Mars,
火星からこんにちは (Kasei kara konnichiwa),
Привет с Марса (Privet s Marsa),
मंगल ग्रह से नमस्ते (Mangal grah se Namaste),
Salutations Martiennes,

This is the final crew expedition of the Mars 160 program. We are six people living in the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station(FMARS), in the Canadian High Arctic far from home. Over here we can only rely on ourselves. The nearest town is Resolute Bay, a one hour of flight from the station.

We have this unique opportunity to sojourn in one of the greatest Mars analog environment on Earth! Mars atmosphere is quite cold and Polar climate is similar. Patterned ground features, characteristic of the permafrost, are observed here and there. On Mars, you would find impact craters in various size and age. Haughton crater is 15 km in diameter and 39 million years old. The station sit on its edge. However, unlike Mars, this place is populated by living extremophile organisms. But some of them could be the key to the survival of the first Mars settlers or to find past life on this planet!

Our goal is to experience some of the remoteness of Mars to learn how to conduct field science operation in such conditions. The scientific investigations are diverse and ambitious.

30 days in Arctic felt like 80 days in Utah desert. Time stretched here and we are adjusting to the environment, just as the humans will do on Mars. By looking at the landscape, almost nothing reminds us of Earth. No signs of any civilization. No signs of life. Just as it will be on Mars. FMARS station showed us vividly how it would feel like to live and work in the alien world.

Resources are also more limited here than at the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), especially power. This imposes a limit on what we do and when we do it. To conserve fuel, the generator is ran 9 hours a day, with gaps up to two hours. When the generator is off, there is no heater, no comms, no cooking. Hopefully we all have laptops that can ran for few hours on the battery, allowing us to keep working. During comms windows, Internet is our only regular way to communicate. Satellite based communication imposes new constraints on how we use it. The bandwidth of few kB/s and the latency rarely below few seconds, if not losing the satellite signal, does not allow us for much more than emailing with the remote team and our relatives.

Unlike the MDRS journeys, we are self-sufficient regarding the water supply which is fetched from a river few hundred meters down the hill. However, we arrived at the station with the food we would get for the entire mission. As the end of the expedition approaches we have seen our food supplies shrinking. Even with safety margin, it is a strange feeling to have noticed that we are actually limited in food supply. This is not something we usually experienced in our regular life. Therefore, we are taking care that nothing got wasted!

The Arctic is a much more extreme environment than Utah. Our operations have to be much more autonomous and self-sufficient on a day to day basis. Communications are more limited, requiring independence of thought and action. This is not a bad thing, with a crew of competent, motivated people this is actually liberating. It does, however, mean that more time must be spent on basic Hab tasks, underlying the importance of automation to crewed missions to Mars and elsewhere. Being in an extreme environment means that safety considerations come first. There is a greater awareness when we are on EVA of distance from the Hab and the instability of the weather.

After this expedition got delayed by more than 3 weeks due to bad weather and ground conditions that prevented us to land on schedule, the mission objectives had to be redefined under the new time constraints. Therefore, no engineering project is conducted during this expedition. The unique features of the field gives priority to the field science activities over all the rest. That is why we have directed all our efforts to fulfill has many field science objectives as we can.

The month at FMARS has been a very valuable experience for us in that it has better equipped us to assess previous Mars analogue research at Haughton crater and provided an opportunity for our own investigations.

Part of what makes FMARS an ideal Mars analog facility is its location in a periglacial environment along the rim of an ancient impact crater. This is a rare setting to have on Earth, but it is repeated planet-wide on Mars. Based on observations by the Phoenix mission in 2008, the role of water ice permafrost in the formation of periglacial features on Mars was confirmed making many periglacial processes on Earth a direct analog for Mars. This provides an opportunity to study some of the younger geological processes that are active on Mars today, right here on Earth.

One periglacial feature that is common between Mars and Earth is patterned ground. Formed as a result of expansion and contraction from freezing and melting permafrost, over time this process etches patterns into the ground ranging from a few meters to several tens of meters across. When comparing satellite images of the patterned ground in Haughton Crater to patterned ground on Mars, it is easy to see why these are such intriguing subjects to study near FMARS.

Over the course of Mars 160, dozens of samples have been collected from a variety of patterned ground types that once analyzed in a laboratory setting back on Earth will shed new insights into how these landforms evolve. By performing most of these field tasks in-sim as weather conditions allowed, it also provided insight into how a crewed mission might investigate similar features on Mars in the future. The results from this investigation will ultimately be submitted for peer-review in an applicable professional journal.

We have been able to collect extensive imagery of the Devon Island landscape that will enable me to refine the regolith landscape mapping methodologies previously developed for cold climate landscapes. Especially valuable have been the landscape features poorly expressed at previous study sites, such as different types of polygons, and a greater appreciation of role of near-surface hydrology in Arctic landscapes.

The bedrock geology of the rim of Haughton crater near the FMARS station is composed on the Allen Bay Formation. Two main facies (rock types with similar characteristics) are present, a dark brown dolostone and a white dolostone. The dark brown facies is rich in megafossil remains, especially of sponges (stromatoporoids), corals (tabulate and both colonial and solitary rugose), and molluscs, most prominently straight nautiloid cephalopods. This facieses commonly intensely bioturbated and may be thrombolitic (a microbial structure with a clotted fabric). The white facies is dominated by laminated and often stromatolitic dolostones, mudcacks and ripples have been rarely seen. Studying these rocks has been made difficult by the lack of coherent outcrop. However, the outcrops present do enable the context of the abundant displaced blocks to be placed in context.

We have also taken the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with impact related features of the Haughton crater. These have included the distinctive grey-coloured polymict melt sheets containing many different rock types, the monomict breccias consisting of fractured bedrock more or less in places with numerous shatter cones, and the polymict ejecta rocks. These impact-related rock types are common on the Moon and Mars, but rare on Earth, where craters are rapidly (geologically speaking) destroyed by erosion or hidden by burial. Here these rocks are widely distributed on the walls and across the floor of Haughton crater.

Biological exploration here at FMARS involves an array of themes, from documenting the Arctic flora to investigating bio-signatures in ancient evaporite rocks. To test the efficiency of science operations on Mars, our scientific work is supported by Earth-based scientists.

Hydro-thermal sulfate deposits from the Impact super site which is located near the middle of the Haughton crater have been sampled to investigate any viable or fossilized signatures of life originated and thrived during impact-induced hydrothermal event in the past. These gypsum-bearing evaporites from outcrops belong to the mid-Ordovician Bay Fiord Formation (39 mya). In the Bay Fiord Formation the gypsum was deposited through evaporation of seawater. Elsewhere in the crater gypsum is known to have formed as a result of the impact driven hydro-thermal activity. Both the processes are considered to be analogous to the sulfate precipitation from the low-temperature aqueous fluid on Mars. So, any microbial life that was present in the brine could have found refuge in tiny fluid-inclusions of the gypsum crystals in the past or potentially left their marks in the depository layers while degradation. Hence, it is fascinating to explore the idea of preservation of bio-markers in evaporite rocks.

The abundance, and ecology of hypoliths and epiliths colonised on limestone in the Arctic are being documented. As well as, we intend to perform comparative genomic analysis on these hardy microbial communities. Identification and characterization of black epiliths, which are commonly seen to be growing on the melt water streaks that we call Recurrent Slope Lineae is also conducted. By studying these lithobionts – rock dwelling organisms – we are trying to understand the effect of moisture on the extent of colonization both in Polar (Arctic) and hot desert (Utah). So, this mission gives us an ideal opportunity to explore these microbial communities in two disparate environments, thereby, would provide an important baseline in this domain and help us anticipate “exophiles” in unanticipated niches of Mars.

Mapping and surveying of lichen biodiversity, Arctic vesicular plants, and molecular analysis of Arctic Diatoms are being studied as well. Studying lichen biodiversity is important for this mission for two reasons. First, Lichen that form an intimate symbiosis with two very different species fungi (mycobionts) and algae (photobionts) and resistant enough to survive extremely low temperatures, high bombardment of ultra violet radiation for a long period of time and show excellent physiological adaptation in Mars-like conditions. So, they can serve as tools for understanding life in extreme environments. Second, for the operational advantage in full simulation suit we dedicate some our EVAs to sample lichen that are evident and easiest to find organisms. It is also about how we perform field science in spacesuit!

In the extreme Polar environment, vascular plants are thought to flower at specific time in response to lack of nutrients, low moisture and scarcity of pollinators to maximize the reproductive advantage. It is also thought that specific flowering time (phenology) is associated with microbial activity in the root zone of these plants. We want to assess how this association between root microbiom and plant phenology works, which can help us understanding the extreme survivability of Arctic plants, and possibly adaptation of crop plants for Mars.

Science Support & Group Dynamic Studies
360° pictures have been taken in a square mesh pattern. Different distance between each points have been tested: 20, 50 and 100 meters. All of scenery points are navigated by GPS. The procedure at each documented point takes up to 2 minutes during a full simulated EVA of 2 to 3 hours. After the mission, it is intended to reconstruct the landscape with the 360° data in order to support the patterned ground study.

A stereograph kit has been designed prior to the mission and been used on the field during suited EVA to capture stereo anaglyph images (red and blue stereo images). The kit was designed thanks to the prior mission at the MDRS. It is compact and light weight to be carried easily during suited EVA. In addition, it is user friendly for anyone to do stereograph pictures. Finally, the main feature may be the very short time – around 3 seconds – required to take the two pictures. The delay between the shots is critical for the quality of the stereo anaglyph images. The field test involve recreating Phoenix lander anaglyph pictures of similar ground features. The height and the distance between the two pictures have been taken from the lander characteristics.

More 360° pictures and 3D scanning measurements have been taken inside the Hab to later on build VR views of the habitat. This will complement the 3D reconstruction of the interior done with CAD software. Lastly, 24 hour time lapse have been taken on the 1st and 2nd floor to understand the flow pattern of the people living inside. This data may help to design better layout of space habitat.

This part of the mission provided us with more interesting data about group cohesion, the influence of isolation and environment on crew behavior. Earth based science team will process the results of eight different tests and compare how the changes of location (from MDRS to FMARS) crew composition affected the psychological pattern of teamwork. This research will provide valuable data for the future Mars analogue missions and help Mars Society in a process of choosing the compatible people for long duration programs.

In order to assess the positive and negative influences of various feature of the mission, the crew is conducting a guided debriefing at regular intervals. This includes individual brainstorming of the main issues experienced by each crew member, categorized them and finally having a group brainstorming to resolve the most important ones. These session have been found very insightful for crew members. Sharing our issues with the whole crew and working all together toward a solution is a crucial activity for building a strong and cohesive team. This is a critical group feature for crews operating under extreme environment such as Mars.

The limited internet access restricted the active outreach work during the simulation. On other side, the isolation helped to concentrate on documenting the mission in narrative genre, which can be compiled into a book. The outreach will be proceeding after the crew comes back to Earth and will be more engaging with the audience.

The odds have been mostly against us. The delay induced by the bad landing conditions have made us to adapt to the constraints. There was no way around. And since our journey is a one life time opportunity, we learn how to push our boundaries to make the remaining time to be worthwhile. This is not a trivial thing to do and it has not been done without glitches. But at the end of the day, we are in this adventure all together, relying on each other. We face the unexpected events as a crew.

The Mars 160 program and this expedition in particular has been supported by Earth based scientists: Dr. Kathy Bywater, NASA Ames Research Center – USA Dr. Vincent Chevrier, University of Arkansas, USA – Prof. Charles Cockell, University of Edinburgh, UK – Dr. Alfonso Davila, NASA Ames Research Centre, USA – Polina Kuznetsova, Institute of Biomedical Problems, Russia – Dr. Chris Mckay, NASA Ames Research Centre, USA – Dr. Rebecca Merica, University of Nevada, USA – Dr. Irene Lia Schlacht, Politechnico di Milano, Italy – Dr. Matthew Siegler, Southern Methodist University, USA – Dr. Hanna Sizemore, Planetary Science Institute, USA – Dr. David Wilson, NASA Ames Research Center, USA.

As Principal Investigators: Dr. Shannon Rupert, The Mars Society, USA – Paul Sokoloff, Canadian Museum of Nature, Canada.

As The Mars Society president: Dr. Robert Zubrin, USA.

Mars 160 crew members would like to express their sincere gratitude to them:

Thank you!
ありがとう (Aligato),
Спасибо (Spasibo),
धन्यवाद (Dhanyawad),

Leave a comment

How to make Maps of Mars in 3D?

How to make 3d maps of Mars

Stamen created to showcase our cartographic explorations. It’s also a place to stash our mapping experiments (Burning Map; Trees, Cabs & Crime). We recently added a new map: a three-dimensional map of contour lines that compose the surface of Mars.

1. Motivations

I started looking for space-related data shortly after hearing news of the NASA sequester (PDF). I wanted to show the value of freeing data produced by NASA, and at the time felt that the sequester would prevent investment in the technical infrastructure necessary to engage developers and citizens by making the data public. After much searching, I stumbled onto a dataset containing contour lines for Mars. Having breached 3D-in-browser in prior work — the Here maps, I realized that creating an explorable, 3D map of Mars was a simple project that would allow me to visit and traverse the surface of another planet.

2. Data

The most difficult part of creating the map was finding the data. I had a general idea of what I was looking for when I began (some sort of geo-located data), but was unsure of what NASA had available.

I recently attended a JPL/Caltech data visualization symposium with Eric, who wrote about the experience here. At the symposium, we spoke to several people at JPL about their “data problem”. What’s interesting is that we perceive the problem differently — NASA/JPL have petabytes worth of data and no way to get it to developers. Bulk downloads would take days if not weeks, and the current API offering is slim (but under active development). While they seem to be grappling with data storage and delivery, we’re having trouble with discovery. We don’t know what the petabytes of data contain, and there’s no single location to browse the totality of NASA/JPL’s data offerings. Furthermore, each NASA/JPL project has a different website, with a different navigation system, with different offerings in different formats.

The data I eventually dug up out of the FTP site PIGPEN is a shapefile of Mars contour lines (see link at end of post) from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, or MOLA, an instrument aboard the Mars Global Surveyor. The MOLA dataset also contains height data, which is necessary for the conversion into 3D.

3. Method

I set up a Tilestache server to serve the shapefile as GeoJSON data, then seeded the entire tileset for several zoom levels since doing it live means a huge delay as the shapefile is re-read for every single tile. Once I had all the tile data cached in a locally-accessible directory, I used Polymaps to read the tiles into the frontend. Polymaps is also the map interaction and tile-handling layer, so that when a user pans or zooms on the (hidden) Polymap, the event handlers translate the motion into 3D coordinate-space. This means I don’t have to re-implement map movement and interaction and can focus on the trickier parts.

Once the tiles load in the frontend, the data is read and the 2D coordinates are drawn as lines in WebGL using Three.js, with the z-coordinate of each line defined by the heights specified in the original shapefile.

4. Future

At a recent Mars hackathon, I had the chance to work with heightmaps, and am currently working on building an uninterrupted surface of Mars. We’re hoping to add more data layers to the maps so that they can be used as interfaces for intergalactic exploration, or maybe even educational tools.

Stamen would love to work with more spacey data. Recently, we’ve been speaking to some folks at the JPL, attempting to understand their data and figuring out how to make it more accessible for developers, who in turn can build interesting projects that will engage the public and hopefully garner more awareness and support for NASA programs.

5. Resources

1 Comment

Space Trigonometry : Barboza Space Center

Leave a comment

Mars Society Convention Coming to California in September

One Month until 2017 International Mars Society Convention
Great Line-Up of Scientists, Aerospace Industry Reps & Academics to Discuss Mars Exploration

In one month, the Mars Society, the world’s largest and most influential Mars advocacy organization, will be marking its twentieth annual international convention dedicated to the study of and planning for human Mars exploration. This year’s conference will take place September 7-10 on the picturesque campus of the University of California Irvine.

Leading scientists, engineers, aerospace industry representatives, government officials, members of academia and the media will gather to discuss the latest scientific discoveries, technological advances and political and economic developments that could help pave the way for a human mission to the Red Planet.

Some of the key speakers scheduled to participate in the four-day convention include:

  • Anousheh Ansari, First Female Private Space Explorer (banquet speaker)
  • Mike Elsperman, Director, Space Science & Advanced Space Utilization, Boeing
  • Dr. John Grotzinger, Former Project Scientist, Curiosity Rover Mission, NASA
  • Dr. Scott Moreland, Member, Mars 2020 Rover Development Team, JPL
  • Dr. Mohamed Nasser Al-Ahbabi, Director-General, UAE Space Agency
  • Dr. Dava Newman, Former Deputy Administrator, NASA
  • Dr. Robert Pappalardo, Project Scientist, Europa Clipper Mission, JPL
  • George Whitesides, CEO, Virgin Galactic
  • Dr. Robert Zubrin, President & Founder, The Mars Society

In addition, the Mars Society is organizing a series of public debates and panel discussions on issues likely to impact the planning of future human and robotic space exploration across our solar system. These include: an open debate on NASA’s planned Deep Space Gateway project, a panel of leading science fiction writers examining humanity’s future in space and a discussion about the ongoing search for life in the universe.

For more details about the 2017 Mars Society Convention, including the confirmed speaker list and the full convention schedule (due out later this month), please visit our web site ( Also registration for the four-day convention and Saturday evening banquet is available online.

Leave a comment

Kids Talk Radio Occupy Mars Science: Writers Wanted

Our Occupy Mars Tiger Team has been invited to write a professional paper on how we plan on growing food faster on the planet Mars.  Who wants the assignment?



Author Instructions

Plant Direct is a sound science journal for the plant sciences that give prompt and equal consideration to papers reporting work dealing with a variety of subjects. Topics include but are not limited to genetics, biochemistry, development, cell biology, biotic stress, abiotic stress, genomics, phenomics, bioinformatics, physiology, molecular biology, and evolution.

Manuscript Types

Editorial: These manuscripts serve as opinion pieces and are invitation only. Bespoke editorials that are not requested the Editor-in-Chief will not be permitted for peer review.

Original Research Articles: Includes primary research articles, negative reports with justifications, replication studies, and other studies that contribute to the advancement of the field.

Corrigendum: All requests for corrections should first be submitted to the editorial office at .There is no publication fee charged for Corrigenda.

All submitted manuscripts will be screened by our CrossCheck similarity software. The journal reserves the right to return any manuscript that is deemed to have too much textual similarity to other published works even if the similar texts are cited properly. In these matters, the journal follows COPE guidelines.

To find out more about CrossCheck visit

Submission requirements

To represent our support of a global identifier and standardization in academic publishing, we require that all authors include a valid ORCID ID and email address during the submission process. Peer review of manuscripts will not commence until this information has been provided for all authors.

There are two ways to add your ORCID ID:1. On the Plant Direct Submission Homepage , click the “Use an Existing ID” to log into your ORCID ID and register it with Plant Direct.2. If you are already logged into the Plant Direct Submission Site, go to the “Modify Profile/Password” link at the bottom of the page underneath General Tasks. On the next page, go to the ORCID field to add the ID.Please Note: The email provided during submission must match the email associated with your ORCID account. If these emails are different, you will not be able to link the two accounts. At this time, each author must add their ORCID information individually. The system does not currently allow author information to be updated on behalf of an author.

Preprint policy

Plant Direct enthusiastically endorses the use of preprint servers. To show our enthusiasm, all manuscripts published using a preprint service before submission to the journal will be eligible for a discount. Please note that proof of prior upload to a preprint server (such as a valid link to the preprint server paper) must be provided during submission in order to qualify for the discount. At this time, we are not able to extend the discount to papers uploaded to a preprint server after the manuscript has already been submitted to Plant Direct.

We encourage authors to upload papers to the BioRxiv ( preprint server and use the direct submission option to submit their manuscripts to Plant Direct.

At this time, we also extend the APC discount to papers previously uploaded to the preprint servers Arxiv ( and Peerjpreprints (

If you have used a different preprint server that is not listed above, please contact the editorial office for guidance.

General Instructions

Manuscripts must be submitted in grammatically correct English. Manuscripts that do not meet this standard cannot be reviewed. Authors for whom English is a second language may wish to consult an English-speaking colleague or consider having their manuscript professionally edited before submission to improve the English. A list of independent suppliers of editing services can be found at All services are paid for and arranged by the author, and use of one of these services does not guarantee acceptance or preference for publication.

A manuscript is considered for review and possible publication on the condition that it is submitted solely to Plant Direct, and that neither the manuscript nor a substantial portion of it is under consideration elsewhere.

Manuscript Preparation

In order to make the submission process as easy as humanly possible, we place very few restrictions on the way in which you prepare your article and it is not necessary to try to replicate the layout of the journal in your submission. We ask only that you consider your reviewers by ensuring that your manuscript is presented in a clear, generic and readable layout, and that all relevant sections are included. Line numbers are often helpful to reviewers. Fonts and spacing are not mandatory but do remember that the more readable your manuscript, the easier it will be for editors and reviewers to properly evaluate it. Post-acceptance, our production team will ensure that the paper is formatted and designed according to our journal style.

Please use the list below as a checklist to ensure the manuscript has all the information necessary for a successful review:

  • Title page, including title, authors list along with authors’ names, authors’ affiliations, and contact information
  • Abstract and 4–6 keywords
  • Text (introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion)
  • Literature cited (see below for tips on references)
  • Tables (may be sent as a separate file if necessary)
  • Figure legends
  • Acknowledgements, including details of funding bodies with grant numbers

Please keep the following guidelines in mind while preparing your article for Plant Direct:

  • Write for a wide audience of plant biologists.
  • Avoid abbreviations and define those that are necessary on first use.
  • Provide background info in the Introduction.
  • Cite previous publications supporting your work.
  • Cite primary research (not reviews) when possible; note that citation of recent research articles is not a substitute for citing original discoveries.
  • Avoid “data not shown” or “unpublished results” – critical data must be available, or should not be cited.
  • Citation to work “submitted” or “in preparation” is not permitted; all cited work must be on a preprint server, published or accepted and in press.
  • Discussion should not repeat the Results, but explore the implications of the Results.
  • Be concise.

Abstract (Maximum of 500 words)

Briefly describe the manuscript’s purpose, your hypothesis, methods, results and conclusions.


  • Should be complete enough that other laboratories can replicate results.
  • Standard procedures should be referenced with variations specifically described.
  • Include complete description of experimental design and any statistical methods used.
  • Describe novel DNA constructs, genetic stocks, enzyme preparations, antibodies and other reagents, and analytical software sufficiently to allow their reproduction. Provide any genes or new sequence data discussed in the article. Novel nucleotide and amino acid sequences must be deposited in a public repository such as the GenBank database (
  • The penultimate section should be Accession Numbers. Insert the following and list accession numbers: Sequence data from this article can be found in the EMBL/GenBank data libraries under accession number(s) XX000000 (list the locus identifier or gene model number where applicable, e.g., Arabidopsis AGI locus identifier, maize ZEAMMB73 number, rice OsXXg number, etc.).
  • If a list of accession numbers is in a table or figure, identify which one.
  • Accession numbers for genes must be specific for each gene; accession numbers for BAC clones or chromosomes are not acceptable substitutes.
  • List numbers for any supplemental data placed in a permanent public repository (e.g., GEO, or Protein Data Bank
  • The last section should list all Supplemental Data files (titles only).

Author Contributions and Acknowledgments

Contribution to a manuscript must be substantive to justify authorship. An author is responsible for major aspects of the research presented. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have made bona fide, substantive contributions to the research and have seen and approved the manuscript in final form prior to submission. We recommend the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for authorship and contributorship, which stipulates that all those designated as authors should meet all four of the following criteria (

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Each article must include an Author Contributions section (to appear after Acknowledgments) that explains how each author contributed to the research and/or writing of the manuscript. Note which of the following tasks each author performed: designed the research; performed research; contributed new analytic/computational/etc. tools; analyzed data; or wrote the paper. All other contributors should instead be acknowledged appropriately in the Acknowledgments section, and authors should seek written permission to include any individuals mentioned in acknowledgments.


Upon first submission, references may be submitted in any standard format (e.g. AMA style).

Figure legends

  • Provide a short title.
  • Describe each panel.
  • Define symbols and abbreviations.
  • Define error bars.
  • Move accession numbers to end of Methods.
  • Separate from the Figures.

Figure preparation

  • Ensure that label text is highly visible and explanatory text only appears in the figure caption/legend.
  • Ensure that all axes and figure elements are well-defined and explained, but avoid unnecessary text.
  • Include (and define) error bars where appropriate.
  • Avoid complex hatched patterns – use simple patterns and color schemes. Make consistent use of color throughout a manuscript (e.g. use the same color or pattern for wild type and different genotypes/treatments in each figure where possible).
  • Ensure that multiple panels in a figure are evenly spaced.

If necessary, we will request higher-quality figures prior to production of proofs. Figures should be conceptual and unambiguous. Guiding principles of good figure preparation are listed below. Click on or follow the “detailed figure guidelines” link below for additional information and examples. See links below on inappropriate figure manipulation and preparing figures for color vision-deficient readers.

Detailed figure guidelines (

Figure manipulation

Plant Direct does not allow certain electronic enhancements or manipulations of micrographs, gels, or other digital images using Photoshop or any other software. If multiple images are collected into a single figure, be sure to separate them clearly with lines. If a digital tool is used to adjust contrast, brightness, or color, it must be applied uniformly to an entire image; targeted alteration of only part of an image is prohibited. Plant Direct reserves the right to ask authors to provide supporting data on which figures were based. Please refer to J Cell Biol 158: 1151 ( for guidance on acceptable and unacceptable digital image manipulation.

Preparing figures for color vision-deficient readers

Many readers of the Journal (1 in 12, on average) have some form of color-deficient vision; therefore, when preparing your figures, please observe the following guidelines to ensure that all readers will be able to comprehend your data.

  • In fluorescent double-staining micrographs and DNA chips, do not use the combination of red and green; use magenta and green instead.
  • For micrographs with triple or more channels, additionally show either grayscale image of each channel or the combination of the two most important channels in magenta and green.
  • For graphs and line drawings, label elements on the graph itself rather than making a separate color-coded key. Do not try to convey information in color only, but use BOTH color and shape (solid and dotted lines, different symbols, various hatchings, etc.).
  • For more information, see the following web site:

Supplemental materials

Data and methods that are integral to the main conclusions of the article must be presented in the main manuscript; for example, it is not acceptable to put critical results or methods into supplemental materials in an attempt to shorten the main text. Supplemental figures and tables should be prepared to the same standards of quality and visual appeal as regular manuscript figures and tables, with all data and elements of the figures clearly defined and fully explained. Manuscripts that have been accepted or for which revision has been requested should follow the guidelines below for preparation of Supplemental Figures, Tables, and Data Sets.

  • Combine multiple supplemental figures and tables into a single PDF (10 MB max).
  • Include a title and complete legend for each item.
  • Briefly refer to each item in Results or Methods (e.g., Supplemental Figure 1).
  • List the titles of each piece of material at the end of your Methods.

Detailed Supplemental Data Guidelines

What constitutes supplemental material?

  • Large-scale data sets and other data that is impractical to include in the main manuscript.
  • Detailed experimental protocols or additional supporting data that would be of interest only to specialists.

Large-scale data sets

Large-scale data sets (e.g., complete or draft genome sequences, genome annotations, genetic maps, EST data sets, transcript profiles, proteomic data sets, metabolic profiles, next-gen sequencing data and plant phenotyping image datasets) that are integral to the manuscript must be provided at time of manuscript submission. These include data from small RNA, mRNA, specialized RNA libraries, ChIP-seq, whole-genome re-sequencing or genotyping, whole-genome bisulfite sequencing, etc.

At the time of publication, these large-scale data sets must be available to readers in a permanent public repository with open access (e.g., GEO, Array-Express, NCBI’s Short Read Archive sequence database; the microRNA database or a general purpose data repository such as Zenodo) as they will not be stored at Plant Direct permanently, only during the review process if necessary. Full data sets must be released, even if only a subset of the data was selected for use in the analysis. Image datasets should be provided with the corresponding extracted data (e.g. as a .csv file). Non-permanent URLs may be provided additionally at the option of authors as a means to enable readers to access or query information more conveniently. Non-permanent URLs may also be provided for software and unusual file types requiring special software downloads or those that are not compatible with Plant Direct website. The Methods section should also contain the following information: algorithms and parameters used in assembly of genomic data; description of procedures for normalization for measurements of transcript abundances; mismatch parameters for genome-matched reads for all libraries; library adapter sequences.

In general, large-scale data sets must be complete (e.g., must include the complete set of genome sequences analyzed, ESTs identified, genes queried in transcript profiling, peptides identified, molecules identified, etc.). When appropriate and suitably sized, these should be provided in comma separated value (csv) format for publication on Plant Direct site (not as PDF files); otherwise they should be made available via public databases. Data supporting transcript profiling experiments must include complete sequence information (e.g., accession numbers, any relevant annotation data, and in the case of Arabidopsis, TAIR locus identifiers []). Authors are encouraged to follow the MIAME (Minimal Information for a Microarray Experiment) standards for microarray analyses For plant phenotyping datasets, authors are encouraged to follow the MIAPPE (Minimum Information about Plant Phenotyping Experiment) standards (

Genome sequencing

The entire raw sequence data on which the genome is based, the final assembled version, and the complete annotation (insofar as possible) of the assembled genome must be available at a public repository at the time of publication. Typical files available for download would include, for example, the genome sequences (contigs or pseudomolecules as FASTA files), a GFF or GTF file describing the gene models, together with cDNA, CDS, and protein sequences as FASTA files. Depending on the focus of the work, information about contig scaffolding and additional annotated features such as transposable elements, miRNAs and ncRNAs may be required.

Peer review

Members of the editorial board will evaluate all manuscripts upon submission to determine whether they are appropriate for evaluation by external expert reviewers.

At submission, authors are required to suggest a minimum of two reviewers. All reviewers will be vetted for legitimacy but authors should take care not to suggest people who have a conflict of interest as defined by the ASPB policy (

While authors’ suggested reviewers may be considered, Plant Direct editors are permitted to use any reviewer reasonably believed to be an appropriate scientific expert, except reviewers who would be excluded by ASPB’s conflict of interest policy.

If authors wish to request the exclusion of certain reviewers for other reasons, specific justification must be provided; such requests may be considered at the discretion of the editor.

Publication process

After the review, authors will receive one of the following decisions regarding their paper:

Accept: Paper is deemed suitable for publication. Publication is dependent on receipt of any final changes/proofs and payments.

Revision Requested: Some experimentation and/or revision is required

Reject: In light of the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and evaluations, the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in Plant Direct. Decline to further consider: Our editors find this paper too far outside of their area of expertise to properly evaluate and manage. We are withdrawing this paper from consideration and returning it to the authors in a timely manner so as not to affect or delay the chances of publishing it elsewhere.

Turnaround Times

Decisions will be made as rapidly as possible. If our editors feel the paper is too far outside of their area for them to properly evaluate, the manuscript will be returned to the authors with a “Decline to Further Consider” decision within three weeks.

If revision is requested, the editorial board will evaluate revised manuscripts and determine whether outside review is required. Plant Direct strongly encourages authors to first deposit manuscripts to preprint servers so that any peer-review delays have no effect on the scientific community’s ability to access the science.

The board will strive to render a decision after only one revision. Requested revisions must be submitted within 2 months unless an extension is granted.

If the authors choose to resubmit a declined manuscript after completing additional experiments, the resubmitted version will be treated as a new manuscript and subject to the full review process.

Accepted articles are published online within five working days, provided payment and the return of final proof files.

Article Publication Charges

All articles published by Plant Direct are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share, and enjoy the benefits of a CC-By license ( To cover the cost of publishing, Plant Direct requires the payment of an Article Publication Charge or APC. Current members of the ASPB and/or the SEB are afforded a discount.

Direct submissions to the Journal from non-society members who do not upload to an approved preprint service prior to submission – $2,200

Direct submissions to the Journal from non-society members who do upload an approved preprint service prior to submission – $1,980

Direct submissions to the Journal from current society members who do not upload to an approved preprint service prior to submission – $1,760

Direct submissions to the Journal from current society members who do upload to an approved preprint service prior to submission – $1,650

Submissions transferred to the Journal from the Supporting Journals that do not upload to an approved preprint service prior to submission – $1,760

Submissions transferred to the Journal from the Supporting Journals that do upload to an approved preprint service prior to submission – $1,650

Appeal Policy

All decision appeals should be formally submitted to the editorial office at Please be sure to include the manuscript ID number, original decision letter, and basis for appeal.

Contact Any other questions or concerns may be sent to the editorial office at

Please press HOME to continue.