SAES-422 Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Report

Status: Approved

Basic Information

Participants

Barkworth, Mary (mary.barkworth@usu.edu) - Utah State University, Utah; Barrington, David (dbarring@uvm.edu) - University of Vermont, Vermont; Dolan, Rebecca (rdolan@butler.usu) - Butler University, Indiana; Gabel, Mark (markgabel@bhsu.edu) - Black Hills State University, South Dakota; Gilbert, Ed (egbot@asu.edu) - Arizona State University, Arizona; Gries, Corinna (cgries@wisc.edu) - University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin; Gust, Greg (ggust@envlc.org) - Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition, Nevada; Harloe, Lisa (unknown) - Tetratech,; Hartman, Ronald L. (rhartman@uwyo.edu) - University of Wyoming, Wyoming; Islam, Melissa (melissa.islam@botanicgardens.org) Denver Botanic Garden, Colorado; Knox, Eric (eknox@indiana.edu) - Indiana University, Indiana; Krings, Alexander (alexander_krings@ncsu.edu) - North Carolina State University, North Carolina; Larson, Gary (Gary.Larson@SDSTATE.EDU) – South Dakota State university, South Dakota; Legler, Ben (blegler@u.washington.edu) - University of Washington, Washington; Les, Don (don.les@uconn.edu) - University of Connecticut, Connecticut; Lewis, Deb, (dlewis@iastate.edu) - Iowa State University, Iowa; Lowrey, Tim (tlowrey@unm.edu) - University of New Mexico, New Mexico; Mark Mayfield, Mark (markherb@ksu.edu) - Kansas State University, Kansas; Melissa Tulig, Melissa (mtulig@nybg.org) - New York Botanical Garden, New York; Mishler, Brent (bmishler@calmail.berkeley.edu) - University of California – Berkeley, California; Murrell, Zack (murrellze@appstate.edu) - Appalachian State University, North Carolina; Riggs, Erin (Erin.Riggs@portlandoregon.gov) - Hoyt Arboretum, Oregon; Struwe, Lena (struwe@aesop.rutgers.edu) – Rutgers University, New Jersey; Thiers, Barbara (bthiers@nybg.org) - New York Botanical Garden, New York; Travis Almquist, Travis (talmquist@benedictine.edu) - Benedictine College, Kansas; Watson, Kim (kwatson@nybg.org) - New York Botanical Garden, New York;

Accomplishments

Note: The accomplishments reported here have been funded by awards to various groups. The largest awards have been from the National Science Foundation but other federal agencies have also played a significant role, often by requiring that data from specimens collected as part of a study be made public. In addition, support has come from state agencies and institutional resources. Nevertheless, it is the commitment of those in charge of the country's herbaria that has made possible the accomplishments and impacts of this project.

The number of herbaria that have learned to share their specimen data via the web has increased dramatically. Moreover, many of these herbaria are making their data available through regional networks that enable users to draw on information from multiple herbaria with a single query.

Software has been developed that makes capturing and sharing specimen data much easier and more efficient than when the project began. Importantly, several networks make it possible to contribute data without installing and maintaining a local specimen database. This significantly reduces the work required for doing so and has helped persuade many smaller herbaria to start contributing. This is significant because such herbaria also tend to involve a relatively high proportion of undergraduates in digitizing, thereby helping them integrate the concepts and tools involved into the knowledge they take with them after graduation.

There are national networks for four taxonomic groups (lichens, bryophytes, macrofungi, and macroalgae). The first three have been in existence for about four years and are an invaluable resource for those working with these groups. At the 2014 meeting, it was decided to work with iDigBio (the NSF funded national aggregator for non-federal herbaria) to develop a national vascular plant network.

The number of specimen records available through regional networks, many of which are associated with a latitude and longitude, has increased dramatically. Equally importantly, the number of different websites that users need to consult to access these records is decreasing.

In areas with well developed networks, land managers and biological consultants routinely use them for generating checklists and distribution maps. This statement is based on informal conversations with such individuals. It is impossible to provide a quantitative estimate of how such usage has changed over time because most networks do not require users to log in to obtain data access. The reason for not requiring users to log in is that it would deter usage. Google Analytics data (Jones et al., in prep.) demonstrates that overall usage is substantial.

Working together on digitization has increased interaction among those in charge of herbaria and is leading to new collaborations in development of educational resources and research tools.

Impacts

  1. At the start of the project, there were three herbarium networks in, or coming into, existence. There was no easy mechanism for herbaria outside these networks to share and present data. Today networks cover the whole country.
  2. The first survey conducted received 192 returns; 33% of the respondents were databasing their specimens, 3% were imaging. The 2013 survey received 299 responses; 77% of the responding herbaria were databasing; 45% imaging their specimens.
  3. The number of herbaria reported as being connected, or about to be connected, to a network in 2014 is around 500.
  4. The networks are engaging many small herbaria whose collections would have been overlooked in the past.
  5. Personnel in all network-connected herbaria are made aware of the value of high quality data and the importance of observing international standards when recording it. Thus, by promoting herbarium digitization the project has promoted awareness of standards.
  6. In 2013, there are over 22 million databased records in the responding herbaria, an increase of 6 million over the number reported for 2011.
  7. As herbaria begin georeferencing their specimens, those associated with them become aware of meaning and importance of geographic parameters such as datums, coordinate systems, and uncertainty.
  8. Thanks to investment by various agencies, notably the National Science Foundation, digitizing a herbarium has become relatively simple. It is still costly because of the time required but software development funded by the National Science Foundation has reduced the costs involved and encouraged collaboration.
  9. Through georeferencing, students and others often become interested in geography.

Publications

Barkworth, M.E., E.A. Deane, B. Legler, M. Mayfield, Z. Murrell, and E. Ribbens. 2013. Progress in digitizing US herbaria. http://www.wiu.edu/USvirtualherbarium/files/Download/2012Survey.pdf.

Barkworth, M.E. 2014. Numerical data from the 2011-2013 surveys of digitization in US herbaria. http://usvirtualherbarium.coffeecup.com/progress.html

Barkworth, Mary E., and Zack E. Murrell 2012: The U.S. Virtual Herbarium: working with individual herbaria to build a national resource. Zookeys 209:55-73. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.209.3205

Jones, T.M., D. Baxter, G. Hagedorn, B. Legler, E. Gilbert, K. Thiele, Y. Vargas-Rodriguez, L.E. Urbatsch. In review. Trends in the use of plant biodiversity data revealed by Google Analytics, Biodiversity Data Journal.

Log Out ?

Are you sure you want to log out?

Press No if you want to continue work. Press Yes to logout current user.

Report a Bug
Report a Bug

Describe your bug clearly, including the steps you used to create it.