Knowledge linked to museum specimen vouchers: measuring scientific production from a major biological collection in Colombia

Abstract

Biological collections are sources of knowledge, particularly critical to understand life when they house specimens from megadiverse countries. However, the scientific value of biological collections is usually unknown because the lack of an explicit link between knowledge and specimens. Here we compiled 628 papers from 152 journals that used collection objects from the Colecciones Biológicas del Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Colombia (IAvH-CB) as sources. The compilation was largely based on expert knowledge. However, to assess the performance of our method we compared our results with results obtained conducting automatic searches in academic databases. We calculated different metrics and depicted geographical, taxonomic, and bibliometric trends. We found that geographic coverage of the IAvH-CB objects used in the studies is largely regional or national. Taxonomically, we found records of 176 families in 61 orders of taxa, but there is large variation among the number of studies in different groups. The bibliometric analyses indicated that there is a growing trend in the number of publications and citations over the years, and that the citation number as well as the H index of this set of papers is comparable to the knowledge produced by major researchers in Colombia and of similar magnitude to that of the production of relatively small or medium sized collections in the USA. The compilation method used performed well, with broad coverage and an omission rate below 8%, compared with automated searches. However, we conclude that both approaches, expert knowledge and automated searches, are complementary. IAvH-CB are a massive source of scientific knowledge about Colombian biodiversity and they are instrumental for documenting basic issues about taxa in the country.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Arbeláez-Cortés, E. (2013a). Describiendo especies: Un panorama de la biodiversidad Colombiana en el ámbito mundial. Acta Biologica Colombiana, 18(1), 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arbeláez-Cortés, E. (2013b). Knowledge of Colombian biodiversity: Published and indexed. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(12), 2875–2906. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0560-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arbeláez-Cortés, E., Torres, M. F., López-Álvarez, D., Palacio-Mejía, J. D., Mendoza, Á. M., & Medina, C. A. (2015). Colombian frozen biodiversity: 16 years of the tissue collection of the Humboldt Institute. Acta Biologica Colombiana, 20(2), 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bradley, R. D., Bradley, L. C., Garner, H. J., & Baker, R. J. (2014). Assessing the value of natural history collections and addressing issues regarding long-term growth and care. BioScience, 64(12), 1150–1158. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carvalho, M. R. D., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S., & Brandão, C. R. F. (2008). Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evolutionary Biology, 35(2), 150–157. doi:10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caycedo-Rosales, P., Laverde, O., & Arbeláez-Cortés, E. (2014). Nuevas especies de aves en Colombia: Uso de estudios multicriterio para su descubrimiento. In J. C. Bello, M. Báez, M. F. Gómez, O. Orrego, & L. Nägele (Eds.), Biodiversidad 2014: Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clemann, N., Rowe, K. M. C., Rowe, K. C., Raadik, T., Gomon, M., Menkhorst, P., et al. (2014). Value and impacts of collecting vertebrate voucher specimens, with guidelines for ethical collection. Memoirs of Museum Victoria, 72, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collar, N. J. (2000). Collecting and conservation: Cause and effect. Bird Conservation International, 10, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Congreso de la República de Colombia (1973). Ley 23 de 1973. Por la cual se conceden facultades extraordinarias al Presidente de la República para expedir el Código de Recursos Naturales y protección al medio ambiente y se dictan otras disposiciones. (pp. 3). Bogotá.

  10. Costello, M. J., May, R. M., & Stork, N. E. (2013). Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science, 339(6118), 413–416. doi:10.1126/science.1230318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dalton, R. (2003). Natural history collections in crisis as funding is slashed. Nature, 423(6940), 575.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Darrigan, G. (2012). Las colecciones biológicas: ¿Para qué? Boletín Biológica, 23, 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  13. De Moya-Anegón, F., & Herrero-Solana, V. (1999). Science in America Latina: A comparison of bibliometric and scientific-technical indicators. Scientometrics, 46(2), 299–320. doi:10.1007/bf02464780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Descamps, E., Sochacka, A., De Kegel, B., Van Loo, D., Van Hoorebeke, L., & Adriaens, D. (2014). Soft tissue discrimination with contrast agents using micro-CT scanning. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 144(1), 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  15. DoNascimiento, C., Cárdenas-Bautista, J.-S., Borja, K. G., González-Alvarado, A., & Medina, C. A. (2016). Illustrated and online catalog of type specimens of freshwater fishes in the Colección de Peces Dulceacuícolas of Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH-P), Colombia. Zootaxa, 4171(3), 401–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donegan, T. M. (2008). New species and subspecies descriptions do not and should not always require a dead type specimen. Zootaxa, 1761, 3748. doi:10.11646/%25x.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elsevier Scopus (2017). Scopus. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  18. Eschmeyer, W. N., Fricke, R., & van der Laan, R. (Eds). (2014) Catalog of fishes: Genera, species, references. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp. Electronic version Accessed May 10, 2014.

  19. ESRI (2009). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.3. Redlands. CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.

  20. Fernandez-Triana, J., Smith, M. A., Boudreault, C., Goulet, H., Hebert, P. D. N., Smith, A. C., et al. (2011). A poorly known high-latitude parasitoid wasp community: Unexpected diversity and dramatic changes through time. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23719. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garfield, E. (1980). Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. Essays of an Information Scientist, 4, 476–483.

    Google Scholar 

  22. German Council of Science and Humanities. (2011). Recommendations on scientific collections as research infrastructures (p. 68). Berlín: German Council of Science and Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115. doi:10.1023/a:1010512628145.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Glänzel, W., Leta, J., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics, 67(1), 67–86. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0055-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2012). GBIF: Global biodiversity information facility web page. http://www.gbif.org/. Accessed July 15, 2012.

  26. Google (2015a). Google Scholar. www.scholar.google.com. Accessed June 10, 2015.

  27. Google (2015b). LSU museum of natural science: Bird collection Google Scholar profile. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JdCwc3sAAAAJ. Accessed December 20, 2015.

  28. Google (2017). KU Ichthyology Biodiversity Institute: Google Scholar profile. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FdXNWeMAAAAJ&hl. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  29. Greaves, C. (2008). ConcApp V 5. Software Program for Windows. http://vlc.polyu.edu.hk/concordance/.

  30. Guralnick, R. P., Hill, A. W., & Lane, M. (2007). Towards a collaborative, global infrastructure for biodiversity assessment. Ecology Letters, 10(8), 663–672. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01063.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hawkins, M. T. R., Hofman, C. A., Callicrate, T., McDonough, M. M., Tsuchiya, M. T. N., Gutiérrez, E. E., et al. (2015). In-solution hybridization for mammalian mitogenome enrichment: pros, cons and challenges associated with multiplexing degraded DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources, 16(5), 1173–1188. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hill, J. J., Chumchal, M. M., Drenner, R. W., Pinder, J. E., & Drenner, S. M. (2009). Use of preserved museum fish to evaluate historical and current mercury contamination in fish from two rivers in Oklahoma, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 161(1), 509–516. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-0764-5.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Holmes, M. W., Hammond, T. T., Wogan, G. O. U., Walsh, R. E., LaBarbera, K., Wommack, E. A., et al. (2016). Natural history collections as windows on evolutionary processes. Molecular Ecology, 25(4), 864–881. doi:10.1111/mec.13529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hykin, S. M., Bi, K., & McGuire, J. A. (2015). Fixing formalin: A method to recover genomic-scale DNA sequence data from formalin-fixed museum specimens using high-throughput sequencing. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0141579. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Inönü, E. (2003). The influence of cultural factors on scientific production. Scientometrics, 56(1), 137–146. doi:10.1023/a:1021906925642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Izquierdo, I. (2013). Los tesoros del investigador: las colecciones de Historia Natural como referencia del trabajo científico. In A. González & A. Baratas (Eds.), Museos y colecciones de Historia Natural: investigación educación y difusión (Segunda época), Memorias de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural (Vol. Tomo XI, pp. 69–83). Madrid: Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kemp, C. (2015). Museums: The endangered dead. Nature, 518(7539), 292–294. doi:10.1038/518292a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kovacic, M. (2009). Is the scientific value of a biological collection measurable? Zagreb, 18(1), 169–174.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kress, W. J., Heyer, W. R., Acevedo, P., Coddington, J., Cole, D., Erwin, T. L., et al. (1998). Amazonian biodiversity: Assessing conservation priorities with taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(12), 1577–1587. doi:10.1023/A:1008889803319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuo, C. W., & Yang, Y. H. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of literature on museum studies. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2(5), 159–164. doi:10.5194/isprsannals-II-5-W3-159-2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lasso-Alcalá, O., Nunes, J. L. S., Lasso, C., Posada, J., Robertson, R., Piorski, N. M., et al. (2011). Invasion of the Indo-Pacific blenny Omobranchus punctatus (Perciformes: Blenniidae) on the Atlantic coast of Central and South America. Neotropical Ichthyology, 9(3), 571–578. doi:10.1590/S1679-62252011000300010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lavoie, C. (2013). Biological collections in an ever changing world: Herbaria as tools for biogeographical and environmental studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 15, 68–76. doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2012.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411, 521. doi:10.1038/35079151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lorini, M. L., Paese, A., & Uezu, A. (2011). GIS and spatial analysis meet conservation: A promising synergy to address biodiversity issues. Natureza & Conservação, 9(2), 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Medina, C. A., Arbeláez-Cortés, E., Borja, K. G., González, F. A., DoNascimiento, C. L., Acosta-Galvis, A. R., et al. (2016). Las colecciones biológicas del Instituto Humboldt. In M. F. Gómez, L. A. Moreno, G. I. Andrade, & C. Rueda (Eds.), Biodiversidad 2015: Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Michán, L. (2011). Análisis bibliométrico de la producción sistemática en América Latina. Acta Biologica Colombiana, 16(2), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Michels, C., & Schmoch, U. (2012). The growth of science and database coverage. Scientometrics, 93(3), 831–846. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0732-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Microsoft (2010). Microsoft Access 2010. Software Program for Windows.

  50. Miller, R. J., Carroll, A. D., Wilson, T. P., & Shaw, J. (2009). Spatiotemporal analysis of three common wetland invasive plant species using herbarium specimens and geographic information systems. Castanea, 74(2), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (2013a). Decreto No. 1376 por el cual se reglamenta el permiso de recolección de especímenes de especies silvestres de la diversidad biológica con fines de investigación científica no comercial. Bogotá.

  52. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (2013b). Decreto No. 1375 por el cual se reglamentan las colecciones biológicas. Bogotá.

  53. Minteer, B. A., Collins, J. P., Love, K. E., & Puschendorf, R. (2014). Avoiding (re)extinction. Science, 344(6181), 260–261. doi:10.1126/science.1250953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Navarro, A. G., Peterson, A. T., & Gordillo-Martínez, A. (2003). Museums working together: The atlas of the birds of Mexico. Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, 123A, 207–225.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nudds, J. R., & Pettitt, C. W. (1997). The value and valuation of natural science collections. London: Geological Society of London.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Page, L. M., MacFadden, B. J., Fortes, J. A., Soltis, P. S., & Riccardi, G. (2015). Digitization of biodiversity collections reveals biggest data on biodiversity. BioScience, 69(5), 841–842. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Paknia, O., Sh, H. R., & Koch, A. (2015). Lack of well-maintained natural history collections and taxonomists in megadiverse developing countries hampers global biodiversity exploration. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 15(3), 619–629. doi:10.1007/s13127-015-0202-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Parker, P. G., Buckles, E. L., Farrington, H., Petren, K., Whiteman, N. K., Ricklefs, R. E., et al. (2011). 110 years of Avipoxvirus in the Galapagos Islands. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e15989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ranking WEB de universidades (2015). Ranking of scientists in Colombian Institutions according to their Google Scholar citations public profiles. 5th edition. http://www.webometrics.info/es/node/70. Accessed December 20, 2015.

  60. República de Colombia (1978). Decreto 1608 Por el cual se reglamenta el Código Nacional de los Recursos Naturales Renovables y de Protección al Medio Ambiente y la Ley 23 de 1973 en materia de fauna silvestre (pp. 59).

  61. ResearchGate (2015). www.researchgate.net.

  62. Robbirt, K. M., Davy, A. J., Hutchings, M. J., & Roberts, D. L. (2011). Validation of biological collections as a source of phenological data for use in climate change studies: a case study with the orchid Ophrys sphegodes. Journal of Ecology, 99(1), 235–241. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01727.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Roskov, Y., Abucay, L., Orrell, T., Nicolson, D., Kunze, T., Culham, A., et al. (2015). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2015 Annual Checklist. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/. Accessed October 10, 2015.

  64. Shen, H. (2012). Chicago’s Field Museum cuts back on science. Nature, 492(7429). doi:10.1038/nature.2012.12105.

  65. Sistema de Información sobre Biodiversidad de Colombia [SiB-Colombia] (2015). Portal de datos. http://www.sibcolombia.net/web/sib/home. Accessed November 10, 2015.

  66. Soacha, K., & Orrego, O. (2014). Colecciones biológicas. In J. C. Bello, M. Báez, M. F. Gómez, O. Orrego, & L. Nägele (Eds.), Biodiversidad 2014. Estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental en Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Specify Software Project. (2013). Specify 6,4,13. Lawrence, Kansas: Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience, 54, 66–74. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. The Earl of Cranbrook. (1995). The scientific value of collections. The Biology Curator, 3, 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  70. The World Bank (2015). Data: Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS. Accessed May 28, 2016.

  71. Thomson Reuters (2013). EndNote X7. Software Program for Windows. http://endnote.com/productdetails.

  72. Thomson Reuters (2014). Web of science. http://wokinfo.com/. Accessed September 15, 2014.

  73. Thomson Reuters (2017). Web of science. http://wokinfo.com/. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  74. Turney, S., Cameron, E. R., Cloutier, C. A., & Buddle, C. M. (2015). Non-repeatable science: Assessing the frequency of voucher specimen deposition reveals that most arthropod research cannot be verified. Peer Journal. doi:10.7717/peerj.1168.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wen, J., Ickert-Bond, S. M., Appelhans, M. S., Dorr, L. J., & Funk, V. A. (2015). Collections-based systematics: Opportunities and outlook for 2050. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 53(6), 477–488. doi:10.1111/jse.12181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Winker, K., & Withrow, J. J. (2013). Natural history: Small collections make a big impact. Nature, 493, 480. doi:10.1038/493480b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Winston, J. E. (2007). Archives of a small planet: The significance of museum collections and museum based research in invertebrate taxonomy. Zootaxa, 1668, 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Yates, T. L., Mills, J. N., Parmenter, C. A., Ksiazek, T. G., Parmenter, R. R., Vande Castle, J. R., et al. (2002). The ecology and evolutionary history of an emergent disease: Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. BioScience, 52(11), 989–998. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0989:teaeho]2.0.co;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Mendoza Cifuentes, K. Borja, O. Orrego, J.C. Bello, and H. García from IAvH for the support they provided. A special acknowledge to Jhon W Miles, Donald C. Taphorn, and Terry Chesser; for their valuable comments and corrections, which improved this manuscript. We also thank one anonymous reviewer whose comments were useful to correct and make a better version of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Arbeláez-Cortés.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arbeláez-Cortés, E., Acosta-Galvis, A.R., DoNascimiento, C. et al. Knowledge linked to museum specimen vouchers: measuring scientific production from a major biological collection in Colombia. Scientometrics 112, 1323–1341 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2461-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Biodiversity
  • Biorepositories
  • Knowledge management
  • Natural history museum
  • South America
  • Specimens

JEL Code

  • Q57

MSC Code

  • 00-02