Memorandum submitted by the British Lichen
Society
SUMMARY:
1. Lichen taxonomy has proved essential
in identifying lichens as part of the wider National Biodiversity
effort. Lichen identifications are crucial in assessing air pollution,
environmental site condition, habitat quality, monitoring changes,
and so on. Lichens have also been important in fundamental science
such as symbiosis and the origin of life.
2. There has been a dramatic decline in
numbers of lichen taxonomists in Great Britain since the 1970's.
Currently there are only 5 professional, salaried practitioners
who study lichen taxonomy and only as a part of their job. They
are all employed by museums or botanic gardens.
3. Most lichen taxonomy is now done by amateurs
and retired professionals. To maintain their expertise these amateurs
need access to institutions with trained professionals and collections.
4. The lichen taxonomic community is ageing.
Most are close-to or beyond retirement age.
5. There are very few young people entering
the subject.
6. Natural history museums in general find
it hard to find suitably trained applicants.
7. Employment opportunities in taxonomy
are decreasing and career prospects are poor.
8. Lichen study is increasingly becoming
excluded from its traditional stronghold in museums.
9. There are no lichen taxonomists left
in British Universities.
10. Field studies are an essential part
of taxonomy and its training but these courses are now rare in
schools and Universities.
11. British lichenology has lost international
competitiveness as evidenced by the over 90 per cent decline in
numbers of published papers by UK-based authors over the past
50 years.
12. Current research priorities should include
(1) monographic treatments of outstanding genera and species complexes,
(2) a review of molecular work on lichens and its efficacy in
solving taxonomic problems, (3) an identification aid to fungal
parasymbionts and parasites, (4) a co-ordinated national distributional
database of lichens and sites of lichen importance, (5) a web-based
identification guide with descriptions and illustrations of every
species.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The image of taxonomy needs improving,
and not just for lichens. Government needs to show a lead in encouraging
taxonomy and acknowledging its role in fundamental bio-systematics.
A strong taxonomic basis is needed for all studies on biodiversity,
ecology, environment, etc., where lichens are involved.
2. University funding needs to be revised
away from crude measures of research output involving published
papers which penalises research entailing long-term studies, such
as taxonomic monographs and identification aids.
3. National Museums and their funding bodies
need to focus more on nationally relevant biodiversity studies
and less on being internationally competitive in fashionable,
big grant-attracting areas.
4. Regional museums, managed by local government,
need to pay more attention to their local collections and employment
of taxonomically-trained staff. Their government funding, based
on indicators like visitor figures, means that collections care
and enhancement and employment of skilled taxonomists are considered
of minimal importance.
5. More emphasis needs to be placed on the
value per se of taxonomy to fundamental science and biodiversity.
This value needs to be assessed by measures other than the
present crude ones of numbers of publications or visitors. School
national curricula and University courses should include taxonomy
as a subject and give relevant training.
6. Taxonomy jobs need to be created in all
areas, such as Government, Museums and Universities. Career structures
need to be established so that taxonomists do not have to leave
their professional discipline in order to progress.
THE BRITISH
LICHEN SOCIETY:
The British Lichen Society has about 700 members
of whom over half are from countries outside the UK. It publishes
The Lichenologist, the premier international scientific
journal devoted to all aspects of lichen studies. Largely through
the activities of the BLS and its members, lichens have become
prominent in environmental studies, particularly air pollution
and habitat quality assessments. Lichen studies have also played
a large role in the wider issues of symbiosis and the origin of
life.
It should be noted that the British membership
of the BLS is overwhelmingly amateur. Most pursue another profession,
or are retired, and count lichens as an interest. Nevertheless,
many substantial contributions have been made by its members,
including the ground-breaking work on air pollution and lichens
and lichens as indicators of habitat continuity.
Taxonomy and systematics form the greater part
of current published research on lichens. Large numbers of new
species are described every year but their systematics remains
somewhat problematical. Recent developments in molecular studies
have given much new data but there remains a lack of general agreement
on lichen classification. The dual nature of lichens (fungus plus
alga or cyanobacterium) makes their taxonomy and systematics a
challenging issue.
However, environmentalists from many disciplines
require accurate methods for identifying lichens, particularly
in the field. The new edition of the British lichen flora to be
published in 2008 shows that many accounts are still provisional.
This is especially critical for fungal co-symbionts which make
a large contribution to the national biodiversity but their identification
remains very difficult for most practitioners.
THE STATE
OF SYSTEMATICS
AND TAXONOMY
RESEARCH:
1. What is the state of systematics research
and taxonomy in the UK? What are the current research priorities?
What are the barriers, if any, to delivering these priorities?
The Lichens of the British Isles, to
be published in 2008 describes all the species known in the British
Isles, about 1700 in total. But it excludes some 600 fungal para-
and co-symbionts. The publication is supported financially by
the BLS and a small grant was made available from Natural England
to help with secretarial duties. However the body of the work
was prepared almost entirely by unfunded amateurs with some crucial
mentoring from professionals who have retired or are close to
retirement. It highlights many instances of unresolved taxonomic
problems and lack of knowledge of lichen distribution and ecology.
Only incomplete databases of lichen distribution
exist; the most complete being for Scotland. Similarly, information
on sites of lichen importance is fragmentary and out-of-date.
The lists of species of conservation importance currently available
are provisional because of the fragmentary nature of the distributional
data.
Current research priorities should include (1)
monographic treatments of outstanding genera and species complexes,
(2) a review of molecular work on lichens and its efficacy in
solving taxonomic problems, (3) an identification aid to fungal
parasymbionts and parasites, (4) a co-ordinated national distributional
database of lichens and sites of lichen importance, (5) a web-based
identification guide with descriptions and illustrations of every
species.
The barriers to delivering these priorities
are (1) declining numbers of skilled, professional and amateur
taxonomists, (2) lack of Universities, Museums and other institutions
supporting lichen taxonomic work or studies with strong "biodiversity"
component, (3) lack of long-term funding to support research requiring
long periods of data-gathering and evaluation, particularly fieldwork.
A fourth barrier soon to be realised will be the retirement and
demise of those lichen-experts who can train the next generation
of researchers.
2. What is the role of systematics and taxonomy
and, in particular, in what way do they contribute to research
areas such as biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and
climate change? How important is this contribution and how is
it recognised in the funding process? How is systematics integrated
in other areas of research?
Lichen taxonomy is essential for identifying
species. Lichens are notoriously difficult to identify by non-specialists.
It requires skilled workers to communicate species concepts so
that non-specialists can identify lichens. Only a limited number
of species can be identified in the field so the fieldworker needs
laboratory backup to complete identification. Identifiers also
need access to literature. Studies needing an up-to-date lichen
taxonomy include assessments of environmental site and habitat
quality to allow decisions on the designation of nature reserves
and other protected sites. Ongoing identifications are needed
to assess changes in site quality owing to climate change, air
pollution, etc.
The importance given to lichens in site assessment
is variable. Some government and local authorities recruit lichen
specialists while others do not. This seems to depend on funding,
when birds and flowering plants tend to be prioritised at the
expense of lower plants and invertebrates. It also depends on
the availability of lichen experts who are few in number.
3. Does the way in which systematics research
is organised and co-ordinated best meet the needs of the user
community? What progress has been made in setting up a body to
lead on this? What contribution do the leading systematics research
institutions make both nationally and internationally?
We cannot identify any co-ordination of lichen
systematics research. Over-arching terms like "biodiversity"
or "environment" might include a lichen research element.
There is no evidence that lichen systematic research has benefited
from the setting-up of bodies like the UK Systematics Forum. All
systematic research currently undertaken by professionals in the
UK is by individuals following their own interests.
4. What level of funding would be needed to
meet the need for taxonomic information now and in the future?
Who should be providing this funding?
A change in priorities is needed in Universities,
Museums and other institutions. In recent years it is well-known
that systematics and taxonomy have become devalued in academic
institutions in favour of research that is more attractive to
funding bodies. What needs addressing is the image of taxonomy
and to raise the profile of its importance in science and to the
nation. Systematics in general is a casualty of the strong incentives
for universities and other institutions to recruit staff who will
maximise grant income and publish in journals of the highest impact.
The government should provide funding for strategic appointments
in systematics research in a range of key disciplines in order
to create and manage a minimum taxonomic knowledge base in the
United Kingdom.
5. How does funding in other countries compare?
Could there be more international collaboration? If so, what form
should this collaboration take and how might it be achieved?
It seems that taxonomy is more valued in European
Universities than in Britain. This is based on the increasing
numbers of academic researchers in Europe. The analysis of articles
published in The Lichenologist (see end) suggests that
now, only 5-10 per cent of them are from British studies compared
with over 90 per cent from foreign sources. This strongly suggests
a much greater lichenological activity abroad than in Britain.
This is the reverse of the situation 40 years ago when British
articles predominated.
6. What impact have developments in DNA sequencing,
genomics and other new technologies had on systematics research?
In what way has systematics embraced new technologies and how
can these research areas interact successfully and efficiently?
There has been a shift of attention away from
purely morphological taxonomic studies to those supported or even
dominated by DNA sequence analysis. In some instances this has
affected the validity of conclusions when DNA and morphological
data seem to conflict. There is an urgent need for an in-depth
review of DNA sequencing methodology and its relevance to lichen
systematics. A guide needs establishing for new researchers in
this area.
One consequence of the new technology is that
it is a barrier for the morphologist-taxonomist who needs access
and funds to use it. Traditionally, considerable lichen taxonomy
has been done by amateurs in their own homes, using morphological
criteria which require little more than a good microscope. In
the 1970s, lichen chemistry became popular for distinguishing
lichen taxa, necessitating additional techniques not available
to the amateur. However, this has not proved a serious barrier
as some institutions have assisted amateurs with chemistry facilities.
But with the drastic reduction of university and museum lichen-taxonomist
staff these resources have become scarce to amateurs. This and
the additional demands of DNA technology may help to account for
the great reduction in taxonomy publications from British amateur
authors.
DATA COLLECTION,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE
AND DISSEMINATION:
7. Does the way in which taxonomic data is
collected, managed and maintained best meet the needs of the user
community? What is the state of local and national recording schemes?
Taxonomic data is collated by the BLS in the
form of a British Is. lichen checklist and synonym list. The BLS
also maintains lists of protected and endangered species. These
are available to all on their website. The BLS is also preparing
the National Lichen Flora publication (see 1. above). Several
individuals have published books and booklets to guide beginners,
based on the BLS sources. Maintenance of these data is by amateurs
and the small number of available professionals. As most list-maintenance
is done by non-professionals, and the few professionals involved
are not specifically funded for these activities, many are out-of-date.
There is a shortage of accessible beginner's guides, and easily
used guides to the lichens of specific habitats, especially those
specified as a priority in Biodiversity Action Plans.
There are two national lichen recording schemes,
both under the aegis of the BLS. One was started in the
1960s, and although computerised, gives limited data and in only
a 10-km map square format. The other scheme, started in the 1990s,
aims to be more comprehensive but lacks funding and progress is
slow. A number of habitat-related schemes, such as for woodlands,
heath lands and maritime sites have become out-of-date.
It is intended that the BLS database will be
available to the NBN (National Biodiversity Network) when mature.
Few lichen records exist on the NBN site other than those in the
Scottish Site Lichen Database (see below).
Local (countywide) lichen recording schemes
are operated by some amateurs but are not widely available. In
our experience local record centres tend to concentrate on birds
and wild flowers. Lower plants are sometimes included if there
happens to be a locally-based amateur source of data. A problem
with giving records to local data centres is that they lack lichen
expertise and lichen information in databases contents can be
unreliable.
A Scottish Site Lichen Database is operated
by RBGE and the BLS. Currently with 260K records, it is now available
on the NBN. It was originally compiled through a grant from SNH,
and applications are being made for further funding to keep it
up-dated
8. What is the role of the major regional
museums and collections? How are taxonomic collections curated
and funded?
Lichen specialist staff were once frequent,
in regional museums such as Leicester, Dundee, Halifax, Norwich,
Hampshire and others where substantial lichen collections exist.
These personnel and institutions provided teaching and research
facilities for local and even national interests. Their collections
were both historic and were kept up-to-date. They were invaluable
as sources of information for local researchers and could be used
by beginners learning identification. In addition, these museums
served as a repository for collections made by local collectors
and have provided considerable information on environmental change.
Many of these museum personnel were influential in lichen taxonomic
and distribution research. But, since the late 1980s nearly all
staff have been lost from these museums and not replaced, or at
best, have been replaced by generalist "collections managers"
with no taxonomic expertise. The result is that the collections
are dying through not being maintained. Worse, the collections
are not updated with new material, making them increasingly historic
and irrelevant to modern needs. At the moment, only Dundee, Southend
and Leicestershire Museums Service have curators with active lichen
interests but these are fitted in with a wider remit towards general
Natural History and administration. Two of these curators (Dundee,
Leicestershire) will have retired by 2009, the third (Southend)
by 2015.
The taxonomic collections and established staff
in local museums are funded by grants from the Government (Museums,
Libraries & Archives Council), the Comprehensive Spending
Assessment and Council Tax. Progressive reductions in levels of
public spending have significantly reduced budgets and shrunk
museum staff numbers. Increased reliance on Best Value Indicators
and MLAC targets intending to increase visitor figures have meant
that background research, collections development and maintenance
have been downgraded in favour of "outreach" and programmes
designed specifically to increase visitor numbers.
Of the National Museums, NHM holds the premier
British and International lichen collection, while RBGE, and NMW
have collections primarily relevant to those countries but with
some international interest. These are curated by, at best 1-2
staff, often as part of wider duties. NHM has no active full-time
lichenologist as the post is used primarily for mineralogy studies.
The Herbarium Assistant post is vacant and has proved difficult
to fill for the past 15 years. The pattern has been for foreign
nationals to take the post temporarily. Both RBGE and NMW curators
have duties wider than just lichens. RBG Kew does not have an
official lichen role as this was transferred to NHM many years
ago. All national museums are funded by government.
9. What progress has been made in developing
a web-based taxonomy? How do such initiatives fit in with meeting
demand for systematics and taxonomy information? How do UK-led
initiatives fit in with international initiatives and is there
sufficient collaboration?
None exist in Britain apart from species lists
maintained by the BLS web site. Several web-based taxonomic sites
exist in other countries, most notably Italy, which has an identification
guide, but relatively few British species are included.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based
taxonomy information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
Any web-based system needs provision for ongoing
maintenance and updating. At least one dedicated staff member
needs to be lichen-literate in order to communicate with specialists
who submit the data and to evaluate it for accuracy.
11. How does the taxonomic community engage
with the non-taxonomic community? What role do field studies play?
Field studies are promoted by the BLS by field
meetings and workshops that are also available to non-members.
The workshops have almost always been taxonomic in nature, aimed
to educate and are guided by an expert.
The Field Studies Council was once a great influence
in educating non-specialists and school children. Usually the
intimate relationship between taxonomy and ecology was well-promoted.
But the FSC has come under pressure from declining student take-up
and the need to increase prices. Often planned courses do not
take off through lack of applicants. The decline in field and
systematic biology teaching in schools and universities is thought
to be behind this. Up to the 1970s, annual attendance at a field
course was often mandatory for students and children.
RBGE has introduced a "lichen-apprentice"
scheme that trains newcomers to Lichenology. It has a local remit
and, although originally financed by a grant from SNH, it is no
longer funded except in staff time and laboratory/library facilities.
Those amateur lichenologists that are available
locally are known to give field meetings and day-courses, often
to wildlife trusts, natural history societies, etc. These courses
aim at a very basic or broad introduction; just a taster in the
hope that someone will become interested.
A new approach has been the Community Heritage
Initiative (CHI) run by Leicestershire County Council, and funded
by the Heritage Lottery. This 5-year project sought to foster
an introductory natural history interest in the general public,
advising and supporting Heritage groups, often on taxonomic/identification/biodiversity
issues, with several sessions on lichens. Experts were recruited
to teach on its events and courses. Funding ceases for this programme
in November 2008.
The "Living Churchyard" project (National
Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh) also had a strong lichen component.
SKILLS BASE
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained
taxonomists working in UK universities and other organisations?
See also Question 8. The table shows there are
only 5 British professional salaried staff with at least a minimal
lichen-taxonomic interest. All pursue lichen taxonomy part-time,
along with a wider remit towards natural history, fungi, lower
plants, etc. The senior NHM post is not active in lichen taxonomy,
while the herbarium assistant post is vacant from February 2008,
and has proved difficult to fill in the past. NHM also has three
part-time unsalaried Research Associates in lichen taxonomy, all
retired professionals. RBGE has one trainee in Conservation biology
who is being trained in lichen identification.
Of professional non-taxonomic lichenologists,
two regional museums have curators (Southend, Dundee) while only
three Universities have such staff; the Nottingham lecturer is
close to retirement while those at Bristol and Bradford have retired.
Organisation
| Staff | Remit
| Trained taxonomist? | Age
|
NHM | 1 Snr Curator
1 herbarium
assistant
| Mineralogy/lichens
Lichens | No
?
| 40+
post vacant |
| RBGE | 1 curator
1 trainee
| Ascomycetes/lichens
Conservation Biology
| Yes
No | 58
30+
|
| NMW | 1 curator | Lower plants
| Yes | 40+ |
| RBG Kew | 1 curator | Fungi-Ascomycetes
| Yes | 40+ |
| Leicestershire Museums | 1 curator
| Natural History | Yes |
63 |
| |
| | |
An emerging issue is the difficulty of finding suitably trained
or experienced staff to fill Museum posts in Natural History.
The issue has been highlighted several times by NatSCA (Natural
Sciences Curators Association) and several posts are unfilled.
There is a great problem with career prospects and progression.
The profession is deemed unattractive by young graduates because
few posts are available and the only career progression lies in
moving out of systematics into administration or wider "Natural
History" duties. There is a small number of lichen consultants
(about 5), who do fieldwork and environmental assessments on a
casual basis. These rely on Museum staff, collections and libraries
for support, and were originally mentored by professional lichen
taxonomists.
13. What is the state of training and education in systematics
and taxonomy? Are there any gaps in capacity? Is the number of
taxonomists in post, and those that are being trained, sufficient
to meet current and future needs across all taxonomic subject
areas?
Much of this was answered above. No training in lichen systematics
or taxonomy apparently exists in British Universities or other
colleges as part of a formal degree course. It is possible that
a lecture on lichens may be given to students at some time in
their career. Lichen taxonomy appears to be seen as irrelevant
to the needs of modern biology compared with say, molecular studies.
This contrasts markedly with the position 30-40 years ago when
most Universities had Lichenologists, including schools of Lichenology
at Oxford, Bristol, Aberdeen and four of the London colleges and
others. Over the past 25 years only five PhDs have been awarded
with a high lichen taxonomic component in the UK. Only two of
these focussed on British lichen taxonomy and biodiversity, the
rest concerned lichens world-wide. These were
1999 Univ. Liverpool, candidate a Thai resident, now deceased
1997 Univ. Sheffield, candidate moved to the USA to seek work
1986 Univ. London, Canadian candidate moved back to Canada
1991 Kew, candidate now works on fungi
1982 RBGE, candidate is curator of fungi and lichens
The only lichen systematic training given is by the BLS or
the occasional course run by members locally to wildlife trusts,
natural history groups, or some extra-mural courses run by University
departments, principally Bristol and Leicester, using local experts
as the trainers. Field courses have almost disappeared from University
curricula.
ADDITIONAL POINTS
NOT COVERED
ELSEWHERE.
The chief problem lies in the very small and declining number
of professionals and amateurs in lichens. They have almost disappeared
from Universities and Museums.
If this situation persists, within five years the body of
national lichen expertise will lie entirely within the amateur
community, unsupported by any national organisations.
The priorities of relevant research need to be reconsidered.
At the moment it appears that lichen research is missed out in
favour of projects that are more attractive to grant-awarding
bodies, more topical or fashionable, internationally competitive,
etc. We are losing out on the fundamental basis of British biology
that is—a knowledge of its species, where they live and
how well they are doing.
An indication of how far British Lichen studies have deteriorated
can be seen from an analysis of the titles occurring in The
Lichenologist for the 50-year period 1958 to 2007. The table
shows that while total submissions have increased 6-fold; those
from British-based authors have declined dramatically. The British-based
articles, occupying over 90 per cent of the early volumes now
occupy less than 10 per cent of the total. This low figure actually
looks better than it is. Of the few British-based articles submitted
in the past 10-15 years, most have been reports of field meetings,
literature listings, editorials, etc., and not leading-edge research.
British lichen research has been overtaken internationally.
4 February 2008
| 
