Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Natural history collections and the future legacy of ecological research

Abstract

Natural history collections are now being championed as key to broad ecological studies, especially those involving human impacts in the Anthropocene. However, collections are going through a crisis that threatens their present and future value, going beyond underfunding/understaffing to a more damaging practice: current researchers are no longer depositing material. This seems to be especially true for ecological studies that now benefit from historical collections, as those researchers are not trained to think about voucher specimens. We investigated indexed journals in Ecology and Zoology to assess if they have guidelines concerning voucher specimens. Only 4% of ecological journals presently encourage (but mostly do not require) voucher deposition, while 15% of zoological journals encourage it. In the first place, this goes contrary to scientific standards of reproducibility, since specimens are primary data. Secondly, this erodes the legacy we will leave for future researchers, because if this trend goes on unchecked, it will leave a massive gap in collections’ coverage, undermining the quality that is presently acclaimed. The scientific community needs a wakeup call to avoid impoverishing the future value of natural history collections. Training and changing researchers’ mindsets is essential, but that takes time. For the moment, we propose a stopgap measure: at the minimum, academic journals should encourage authors to deposit specimens in open collections, such as museums and universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Data availability

All data are available in the body of the article and in the Supplementary Material file.

References

  1. Alexander M, Alexander EP, Decker J (2007) Museums in Motion: an introduction to the history and functions of museums, 3rd edn. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

  2. Andrew C, Diez J, James TY, Kauserud H (2018) Fungarium specimens: a largely untapped source in global change biology and beyond. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170392. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0392

  3. Astrin J, Zhou X, Misof B (2013) The importance of biobanking in molecular taxonomy, with proposed definitions for vouchers in a molecular context. ZooKeys 365:67–70. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.365.5875

  4. Bortolus A (2008) Error Cascades in the biological sciences: the unwanted consequences of using bad taxonomy in ecology. AMBIO 37:114–118. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[114:ECITBS]2.0.CO;2

  5. Clemann N, Rowe KMC, Rowe KC, Raadik T, Gomon M, Menkhorst P, Sumner J, Bray D, Norman M, Melville J (2014) Value and impacts of collecting vertebrate voucher specimens, with guidelines for ethical collection. Mem Mus Vic 72:141–151

  6. Dalton R (2003) Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/423575a

  7. Danks HV (1991) Museum collections: fundamental values and modern problems. Collect Forum 72:95–111

  8. Findlen P (1994) Possessing nature: museums, collecting, and scientific culture in Early Modern Italy. University of California Press, Berkeley

  9. Gerlach J, Samways MJ, Hochkirch A, Seddon M, Cardoso P, Clausnitzer V, Cumberlidge N, Daniel BA, Black SH, Ott J, Williams PH (2014) Prioritizing non-marine invertebrate taxa for Red Listing. J Insect Conserv 18:573–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9660-6

  10. Green RE, Scharlemann JPW (2003) Egg and skin collections as a resource for long-term ecological studies. Bull Br Ornithol Club 123A:165–176

  11. Hamer M (2012) An assessment of zoological research collections in South Africa. S Afr J Sci 108:1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v108i11/12.1090

  12. Huber JT (1998) The importance of voucher specimens, with practical guidelines for preserving specimens of the major invertebrate phyla for identification. J Nat Hist 32:367–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222939800770191

  13. Johnson KW (2018) The ornithologist the Internet called a murderer. N Y Times, 15 June 2018

  14. Kharouba HM, Lewthwaite JMM, Guralnick R, Kerr JT, Vellend M (2019) Using insect natural history collections to study global change impacts: challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170405. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0405

  15. Knell SJ (1999) What future collecting? In: Knell SJ (ed) Museums and the future of collecting. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 3–14

  16. Lane MA (1996) Roles of natural history collections. Ann Mo Bot Gard 83:536–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/2399994

  17. Lughadha NE, Walker BE, Canteiro C, Chadburn H, Hargreaves SD, Lucas EJ, Schuiteman A, Williams E, Bachman SP, Baines D, Barker A, Budden AP, Carretero J, Clarkson JJ, Roberts A, Rivers MC (2018) The use and misuse of herbarium specimens in evaluating plant extinction risks. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170402. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0402

  18. MacLean HJ, Nielsen ME, Kingsolver JG, Buckley LB (2018) Using museum specimens to track morphological shifts through climate change. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170404. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0404

  19. Martin NA (1990) Voucher specimens: a way to protect the value of your research. Biol Fertil Soils 9:93–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00335789

  20. Mearns B, Mearns R (1998) The bird collectors. Academic, Cambridge

  21. Meineke EK, Davies TJ, Daru BH, Davis CC (2018) Biological collections for understanding biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0386

  22. Packer L, Monckton SK, Onuferko TM, Ferrari RR (2018) Validating taxonomic identifications in entomological research. Insect Conserv Divers 11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12284

  23. Pleijel F, Jondelius U, Norlinder E, Nygren A, Oxelman B, Schander C, Sundberg P, Thollesson M (2008) Phylogenies without roots? A plea for the use of vouchers in molecular phylogenetic studies. Mol Phylogenet Evol 48:369–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.024

  24. Popper K (1935) Logik der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Springer, Vienna

  25. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  26. Régnier C, Achaz G, Lambert A, Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B (2015) Mass extinction in poorly known taxa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7761–7766. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502350112

  27. Remsem JV (1995) The importance of continued collecting of bird specimens to ornithology and bird conservation. Bird Conserv Int 5:146–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095927090000099X

  28. Rocha LA, Aleixo A, Allen G, Almeda F, Baldwin CC, Barclay MVL, Bates JM, Bauer AM, Benzoni F, Berns CM, Berumen ML, Blackburn DC, Blum S, Bolaños F, Bowie RCK, Britz R, Brown RM, Cadena CD, Carpenter K, Ceríaco LM, Chakrabarty P, Chaves G, Choat JH, Clements KD, Collette BB, Collins A, Coyne J, Cracraft J, Daniel T, Carvalho MR, Queiroz K, Dario FD, Drewes R, Dumbacher JP, Engilis A, Erdmann MV, Eschmeyer W, Feldman CR, Fisher BL, Fjeldså J, Fritsch PW, Fuchs J, Getahun A, Gill A, Gomon M, Gosliner T, Graves GR, Griswold CE, Guralnick R, Hartel K, Helgen KM, Ho H, Iskandar DT, Iwamoto T, Jaafar Z, James HF, Johnson D, Kavanaugh D, Knowlton N, Lacey E, Larson HK, Last P, Leis JM, Lessios H, Liebherr J, Lowman M, Mahler DL, Mamonekene V, Matsuura K, Mayer GC, Mays H, McCosker J, McDiarmid RW, McGuire J, Miller MJ, Mooi R, Mooi RD, Moritz C, Myers P, Nachman MW, Nussbaum RA, Foighil DÓ, Parenti LR, Parham JF, Paul E, Paulay G, Pérez-Emán J, Pérez-Matus A, Poe S, Pogonoski J, Rabosky DL, Randall JE, Reimer JD, Robertson DR, Rödel M-O, Rodrigues MT, Roopnarine P, Rüber L, Ryan MJ, Sheldon F, Shinohara G, Short A, Simison WB, Smith-Vaniz WF, Springer VG, Stiassny M, Tello JG, Thompson CW, Trnski T, Tucker P, Valqui T, Vecchione M, Verheyen E, Wainwright PC, Wheeler TA, White WT, Will K, Williams JT, Williams G, Wilson EO, Winker K, Winterbottom R, Witt CC (2014) Specimen collection: an essential tool. Science 344:814–815. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.344.6186.814

  29. Rogers DC, Ahyong ST, Boyko CB, D’Acoz CD (2017) Images are not and should not ever be type specimens: a rebuttal to Garraffoni & Freitas. Zootaxa 4269:4551459. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4269.4.3

  30. Ruedas LA, Salazar-Bravo JO, Dragoo JEW, Yates TL (2000) The importance of being earnest: what, if anything, constitutes a “specimen examined”? Mol Phylogenet Evol 17:129–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/mpev.2000.0737

  31. Salvador RB, Tomotani BM, Miskelly CM, Waugh SM (2019) Historical distribution data of New Zealand endemic families Callaeidae and Notiomystidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Check List 15:701–727. https://doi.org/10.15560/15.4.701

  32. Schilthuizen M, Vairappan CS, Slade EM, Mann DJ, Miller JA (2015) Specimens as primary data: museums and “open science”. Trends Ecol Evol 30:237–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.03.002

  33. Schmitt CJ, Cook JA, Zamudio K, Edwards SV (2018) Museum specimens of terrestrial vertebrates are sensitive indicators of environmental change in the Anthropocene. Philos Trans R Soc B 374:20170387. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0387

  34. Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2004) The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience 54:66–74. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2

  35. Turney S, Cameron ER, Cloutier CA, Buddle CM (2015) Non-repeatable science: assessing the frequency of voucher specimen deposition reveals that most arthropod research cannot be verified. PeerJ 3:e1168. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1168

  36. Webster MS (2017) The extended specimen. In: Webster MS (ed) The extended specimen: emerging frontiers in collections-based ornithological research. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–10

  37. Westereng L (1999) Voucher specimen collection, preparation, identification and storage protocol: animals. Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria

  38. Wheeler TA (2003) The role of voucher specimens in validating faunistic and ecological research. Biological Survey of Canada. Biol Surv Can Doc Ser 9:1–21

  39. Winker K, Braun MJ, Graves GR (1996) Voucher specimens and quality control in avian molecular studies. Ibis 138:345–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1996.tb04351.x

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Dione Seripierri (MZSP, Brazil) for the help in compiling the periodicals from Web of Science; to Barbara M. Tomotani (Te Papa) for the assistance with data analysis and helpful comments; and to the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions.

Author information

RBS conceived the idea and led the writing of the manuscript. RBS and CMC contributed equally to data gathering, analysis, and interpretation of results.

Correspondence to Rodrigo B. Salvador.

Additional information

Communicated by Roland A. Brandl.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 33 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salvador, R.B., Cunha, C.M. Natural history collections and the future legacy of ecological research. Oecologia (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-020-04620-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Museums
  • Primary data
  • Reproducibility
  • Voucher specimens
  • Vouchering