From Plant Press, Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2020.
By Julia Beros
Herbaria are not static institutions. They are not dust boxes growing stale or overgrown libraries of dead plants. Yet there is a stigma that knowledge of local flora has reached its capacity, taxonomy is “old school”, and resources should not be allocated to grow herbarium collections. “A collection” implies perhaps a finite assemblage of representatives of a flora, a catalogue of greatest hits, and a singularly definitive portrait of a biological moment in time. A biological collection though is more principally representative of change. Collections serve as a record of biodiversity with supreme detail that informs all other aspects of plant research: systematics and floristics, evolution and ecology, conservation and land management, and education. Though beyond this, collections record the activity of scientists and research institutions, and places this scientific effort into an historical context. It is likely that the current coronavirus pandemic will leave a great void in the biological records of herbaria as it alters the capability, resources, and focus of plant collecting as the pandemic continues to limit and alter the ways in which we may safely interact with our world. Currently, a piece of our landscape’s history is at risk of being erased, or more so never being recorded.
It has been noted (for some time now) that plant collecting was already on the decline before the COVID-19 pandemic stalled many research trips. According to Prather et al. 2004 (Syst. Bot. 29:15-28), the general trend for plant collecting has been on decline since the 1960s (taken from a diversely sampled 71 herbaria). Discussed by Daru et al. 2017 (New Phytol. 217: 939-955), (and referencing many other discussions of the great decline in plant collecting) the ramifications of this trend are amplified by the widespread biases in herbarium collections. These biases include the influence of “mega-collectors” whose preferences shaped the content of collections beyond their own time at an institution. Other biases are temporal, geographic, and spatial, all limiting and skewing collections representation.
Presently the general focus for many institutions is largely in the Neotropics, as it is still understudied in comparison with many temperate floras, often shifting resources away from local floristic studies. With strong efforts being made to study and research the tropical flora, particularly in the Amazon, there is also a growing concern for repatriating and protecting the biological property of countries in these intensely studied regions (to mitigate the effects of scientific and economic exploitation as has been a recurring theme in history). However, there is continual evidence that temperate floras are not “complete” as new species are still being described, ecologies change rapidly with urban growth, destruction, and climate change (often altering plant distributions and population sizes), and species extinctions are not being fully documented.
There is another urgent danger: outlined in a letter to Congress from the American Alliance of Museums, it is estimated that nearly a third of museums are in jeopardy of permanently closing because of the conditions of the pandemic, and this includes herbaria. In addition, Funk and Morin 2000 (SIDA 18:35-52) note that herbaria in the southeastern U.S. are at a high risk of closing, making the floristic study of those regions an urgent endeavor. Despite facing the continued everyday challenges of low resources and staffing, and the urgent concern for the future of small herbaria, herbarium collections still provide incredible raw data for researchers and inform new scientific findings regularly.
2020 has shaped an incredibly unique scenario marked by viral and societal factors whose clash are catalyzing great change. Similar periods in history show a pause in collecting at the U.S. National Herbarium. In 1918 during the flu pandemic, accessioned collections dropped nearly in half from the previous year. Despite the challenges during the 1918 pandemic, local teen botanical enthusiast, Helen Barron, collected, pressed, and mounted plants, creating a personal herbarium that reflects the flora of Washington D.C. during that time. Leaving behind a catalogue of books filled with tenderly pressed and methodically labeled specimens, Barron’s recreational botany has offered the unique perspective of plant collecting in a pandemic.
While amateurs and enthusiasts often prove to be critical support for filling in collection gaps, the international exchange of collections among institutions ensures a safeguard in protecting collections and completing the historical record. Museum Specialist Erika Gardner recounts a time at her previous institution, in which Mare Nazaire, California Botanic Garden curator, uncovered a large stack of specimens from Berlin predating World War II. Many of these collections were thought to be lost in the war, but through the collaboration of the two institutions these specimens were returned to Berlin and helped rebuild their lost collections. As unexpected circumstances arise it proves crucial to have a collaborative network among herbaria to support our global efforts in documenting and researching biodiversity. As we have just heard news of another fire devastating natural history collections in Brazil (the Federal University of Minas Gerais’ Natural History Museum and Botanical Garden in Belo Horizonte), we should be reminded of the importance of supporting our international community.
Due to the current pandemic, Smithsonian researchers have canceled collecting trips leaving them in a bit of flux as they figure out how to carry on with their research. Benjamin Crain canceled trips to Palau this year marking the longest collecting gap in an ongoing survey of the flora of the islands. Rob Soreng has postponed trips to Nepal at least until 2021, delaying his research on the genus Poa as part of the Flora of Nepal. John Kress has cancelled field work in the Caribbean and the western coast of the U.S. Despite their typical dependence on field work, Smithsonian’s ForestGEO has seen some positive impact in local capacity building at one of their sites in Papua New Guinea. ForestGEO is seeing the efforts of a strengthened scientific capacity of in-country partners paying off, as lack of international travel is allowing more opportunity for on-site personnel to develop the skills of their field crew. Smithsonian botanists continue to write up new species from the existing herbarium collections. Dynamic bryology duo Karen Golinski and Harold Robinson continue to describe new species uncovered in a backlog of mosses, even as they now collaborate from across the continent.
While travel is stunted, many are focusing on the existing collections and data cleanup. Amateur collectors have a great opportunity to contribute knowledge and data of local floras as well. Perhaps through encouraging more citizen scientist opportunities like the iNaturalist challenges in the spring, efforts of local botanical enthusiasts can help to fill floristic data gaps. While many are still waiting for a safe return to collecting, I and fellow botany contractor Victor Shields have returned (at a distance and fully masked) to the National Museum of Natural History in Phase 1 reopening to restart the conveyor belt and continue to image the herbarium collections. Through this restart more work will be created to support and continue the role of other contractors and staff, and more of the collections will be made accessible to the public.
Many are already noticing shifts in the wildlife around our homes, a new vibrancy, and it will be exciting when we start collecting again to see how the ecology has shifted. Perhaps we will see more unbiased randomized collecting, more wholly representative of the local flora in 2020. With our lives limited to our local spheres, this has the potential to benefit the basic infrastructure of our institutions: reinvigorating interest in collecting and researching local flora, and strengthening herbarium collections. When we look back on the collections from this time, as well as the possible lack of records, what will we be able to glean about our relationship to nature through this pandemic? How will we decipher our reactions to the crises that we are facing, and what impact will they leave in our biological record? This could be a great time to reimagine traditional models of plant collecting and the priorities and primary uses of herbaria. While the hazy yet inevitable consequences of this challenging time will test the strength of the botanical community, it also presents a perfect opportunity to holistically reevaluate our needs and priorities, create room for more robust and evolving collections, and plan for ways to protect the future of our historic specimens. Our history, after all, informs our present.
As part of my work supporting our local municipality I collect voucher specimens of the major flora in our estuary; these are fundamental data to document current conditions, complex and changing. To assume all is known of these species in this ecosystem is a fools mistake. The collection of basic data are absolutely essential to maybe uncovering new understanding of an ubiquitous ecosystem. I have also noted the bias in collections around the world, shaped often as you pointed out, by a dominant collection - someone's special area of interest. I hope these biases are recognized by researchers. In a sense my collection is biased as well as I only collect from my estuary in northeast Florida.
Posted by: Gary D Moore | 07/23/2020 at 12:39 PM