Skip to main content
Log in

Why taxonomists and ecologists are not, but should be, carpooling?

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditionally, ecologists and taxonomists have conducted mostly separated research. Ecologists have been using the well-known species groups as their model organisms for practical reasons, whereas taxonomists have focused on poorly known species groups. Extensive collaboration between these research fields has unfortunately been a rarity. We argue that increased collaboration between ecologists and taxonomists yields benefits through several pathways. Firstly, it improves the scientific quality of both disciplines through deeper insight on the study organisms and increased feasibility of the collected data. Secondly, it improves the prospects of the scientists involved and opens up potential funding sources, helping to solve the taxonomic impediment. Finally, improved collaboration could balance ecological research towards more species-rich, functionally important groups. This would increase the quality and effectiveness of nature conservation and management plans positively affecting the sustainability of environmental policy making. These obvious benefits should be swiftly acknowledged by research institutions, science leaders and funding bodies. They should actively promote for strong collaborative efforts from the present and recruited staff representing both disciplines.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrego N, Salcedo I (2015) Taxonomic gap in wood-inhabiting fungi: identifying understudied groups by a systematic survey. Fungal Ecol. doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2015.01.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnarsson I, Kuntner M (2007) Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Syst Biol 56:531–539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bebber D, Wood JRI, Barker C, Scotland RW (2014) Author inflation masks global capacity for species discovery in flowering plants. New Phytol 201:700–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnet X, Shine R, Lourdais O (2002) Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends Ecol Evol 17:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brito D (2004) Lack of adequate taxonomic knowledge may hinder endemic mammal conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biodivers Conserv 13:2135–2144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks DR, McLennan DA (1991) Phylogeny, ecology and behavior: a research program in comparative biology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark JA, May RM (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Disney H (1998) Rescue plan needed for taxonomy. Nature 394:120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD (2009) The skates on thin ice. Nature 462:417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach MC, Valdecasas AG, Wheeler QD (2011) Impediments to taxonomy and users of taxonomy: accessibility and impact evaluation. Cladistics 27:550–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evenhuis NL (2007) Helping solve the “other” taxonomic impediment: completing the eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic nirvana. Zootaxa 1407:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, McCarthy MA, Wintle BA (2008) When have we looked hard enough? A novel method for setting minimum survey effort protocols for flora surveys. Austral Ecol 33:986–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, May RM (1992) Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356:281–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giangrande A (2003) Biodiversity, conservation and the ‘Taxonomic impediment’. Aquat Conserv 13:451–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green SV (1998) The taxonomic impediment in orthopteran research and conservation. J Insect Conserv 2:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith GW (2012) Do we need a global strategy for microbial conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 27:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths RA, Dos Santos M (2012) Trends in conservation biology: progress or procrastination in a new millennium? Biol Conserv 153:153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme P, Heilmann-Clausen J, Rämä T, Kosonen T, Kunttu P (2012) Monitoring fungal biodiversity—towards an integrated approach. Fungal Ecol 5:750–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins GW, Freckleton RP (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 5:245–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C (2008) Taxonomy sinking down under. Science 319:1601

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Juslén A, Sirkiä S (2013) The unknown northern green: evaluation of a national forest biodiversity research program. Biodivers Conserv 22:811–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee MSY (2000) A worrying systematic decline. Trends Ecol Evol 15:346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li J (2009) China searches for an 11th-hour lifesaver for a dying discipline. Science 325:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodman JE, Cody JH (2003) The taxonomic impediment overcome: NSF’S partnerships for enhancing expertise in taxonomy (PEET) as a model. Syst Biol 52:428–435

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ronquist F, Gärdenfors U (2003) Taxonomy and biodiversity inventories: time to deliver. Trends Ecol Evol 18:269–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salcedo I, Pieri M, Rivoire B (2004) Contribución al conocimiento de los Polyporales s.l. de Navarra. Boletín de la Sociedad Mocológica de Madrid 28:169–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein BA, Master LL, Morse LE (2002) Taxonomic bias and vulnerable species. Science 297:1807

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ (2006) Ecological census techiques a handbook, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tellería MT (2002) Riqueza fúngica de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares: El proyecto “Flora Micológica Ibérica”. In: Pineda FD, Casado MA, de Miguel JM, Montalvo J (eds) La diversidad biológica de España. Prentice Hall, Madrid, pp 153–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler Q (2014) Are reports of the death of taxonomy an exaggeration? New Phytol 201:370–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree R (2013) Global change, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: what can we learn from studies of pollination? Basic Appl Ecol 14:453–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Nerea Abrego for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Panu Halme thanks Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation and Finnish Ministry of Environment for funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panu Halme.

Additional information

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halme, P., Kuusela, S. & Juslén, A. Why taxonomists and ecologists are not, but should be, carpooling?. Biodivers Conserv 24, 1831–1836 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0899-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0899-3

Keywords

Navigation