Memorandum submitted by the Royal Horticultural
Society
The Royal Horticultural Society is a charitable
organization with the purpose of encouraging and improving the
science, art and practice of horticulture in all its branches.
It is a membership organization with over 360,000 members from
the UK and overseas. Its vision is to be the leading organization
demonstrating excellence in horticulture and promoting gardening.
As a learned society it has a remit for furthering the science
of horticulture, including the systematics of plants in cultivation
and organisms that affect plants. As a membership organization
an important aspect of its work is providing an interface between
the specialists and the wider public and therefore has a role
in conveying the benefits of systematic research.
The RHS submitted evidence to the previous inquiry
in 2002 and welcomes the opportunity to do so again. As both a
provider and user of systematics, it regards the UK's capabilities
in systematic research as critical in supporting its work, and
is keen to support any initiative that sustains or improves the
research base in this country.
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?
1.1 Over the past five years there has been
a continuing emphasis on research addressing evolutionary relationships
of organisms, and more specifically on functional or developmental
significance of component parts or molecules (generally referred
to as -omics studies). It is still the case that the underpinning
studies of organism diversity (whole organism biology) are still
under-resourced.
1.2 Systematics research is largely confined
now to the established institutions (RBG Kew, RBG Edinburgh, Natural
History Museum, Central Science Laboratories) with very little
now being carried out in the universities with the conspicuous
exceptions of Cambridge, Oxford and Reading who still have active
taxonomy research programmes. Major regional museums, such as
Cardiff, Manchester and Liverpool have some systematics capabilities
but not a critical number to foster a healthy climate for research.
1.3 The RHS has a small team (see 12.1)
of taxonomists and is internationally recognized the centre in
the UK for horticultural taxonomy.
1.4 There remains a conspicuous difference
in the concentration of expertise. The "higher organisms"
such as flowering plants and insects and mammals still have a
significant number of specialists, whereas those groups that have
not enjoyed the support of a single institution (such as fungi
and protozoa), continue to decline in the number of experts. Mycology
is of particular concern given the significance of fungi to plant
and animal health, to industry and the environment. At present
there are fewer than 10 fungal taxonomists in the UK in a group,
where new taxa frequently come to light and the diversity of which
is still poorly known.
1.5 A huge positive impact has been made
by the sharing of taxonomic data on the internet, which reduces
the amount of time spent by taxonomists in resolving basic queries.
Notable amongst many such sources are the International Plant
Names Index (IPNI), GenBank, Species 2000, Index Fungorum and
Tropicos.
1.6 The priority for systematics and taxonomy
is to document and make widely available what is known of our
diversity, and to describe what is not known.
1.7 The principal barrier to delivering
the requirement for systematics is the funding environment, where
support is provided through an unstable mix of core funding, research
grants, collaboration with industry, fundraising (and a tax regime
that does not encourage large-scale donations in the way that
this operates in the USA).
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?
2.1 The ever-increasing threat to organism
diversity through habitat loss and climate change, means that
the emphasis must be on conservation and the understanding of
ecosystems; both these depend upon a thorough knowledge of diversity.
This is of particular relevance in horticulture, as the horticultural
world seeks to meet its responsibilities under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), Access & Benefit Sharing agreements
and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
2.2 A demonstration of the use of taxonomy
in support of conservation is the research carried out into the
systematics of Cyclamen, a genus of horticultural importance
all species of which are listed in Appendix II of CITES. This
research was aimed at gaining a better understanding of localized
populations and therefore contributing to the conservation of
threatened populations and the monitoring of their importation.
This work was co-funded by the RHS and the Cyclamen Society.
2.3 A further application in relation to
conservation is research now being carried out at RBG Edinburgh
on hybridization in China between species in Rhododendron
Subsect. Taliensia. This PhD study will help to understand
the effects on species boundaries arising from the increased potential
for hybridization to occur following habitat degradation and loss.
This work is funded the RHS Rhododendron & Camellia Group.
2.4 RHS plant names data are currently being
used to construct a measure of genetic diversity of cultivated
plants in the UK. It is the basis of any recording scheme to monitor
the conservation status of cultivated plants. The impact of climate
change can be detected through changes in what can be grown in
gardens but the correct identification of these plants is essential
for a robust, evidence-based documentation of these changes
2.5 The taxonomic input to determining the
effects of climate change are still developing, but it is anticipated
that it will have a key role in characterizing the impact of change
on wildlife and cultivated plants as well as assisting in assessing
the true threat of organisms coming into the UK that may prove
to be invasive. The RHS already contributes, through its advisory
service, in detecting the early appearance of new organisms entering
through gardens and providing data on their spread. Recent examples
include the Horse Chestnut leaf miner, Rosemary beetle and Fuchsia
gall mite, as well as the spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora
ramorum). Our ability to do this is dependent upon the
taxonomic expertise at the RHS and in other institutions.
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?
3.1 The RHS is both a provider of systematics
and a user of the outputs of systematics research. The Society
also sees itself as having an important role in promoting a wider
appreciation and understanding of the benefits of systematics
through its publications, provision of an advisory service and
through information on its website. It also provides advice to
the Government through consultations on future legislation in
the areas of wildlife and conservation.
3.2 The RHS benefits from linkages with
major UK research organizations through its Science & Horticultural
Advice Committee, and through collaborative research with RBG
Kew and RBG Edinburgh. It has Associate Institute status with
the University of Reading. The RHS places great value on the work
of the leading systematics research institutions, whose collections,
data and literature resources are of international importance.
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?
4.1 The RHS has no evidence on the level
of funding required. It would re-iterate the point made above
(1.6) about the problems inherent in the nature of the funding
for systematics in the UK, and the need for more support for descriptive
taxonomy.
4.2 The RHS, as a provider of systematic
research, is principally involved with mycology, entomology and
botany (horticultural taxonomy). Its work is not directly funded
by the Government and is dependent upon funds raised by the Society
and on grants awarded for specific projects and collaborations
with other organizations. This means that most of our research
is small-scale although there is a greater capacity for longer
term studies than is the case in some other organizations.
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?
5.1 The RHS has no data on the level of
funding for systematics funding in other countries. However, although
the situation is not directly comparable to the UK, it is worth
noting that Beijing Botanic Garden employed 100 new taxonomists
in 2007.
5.2 International collaboration in systematics
research has increased over time, especially through EU initiatives.
Investigating organisms with a wide distribution and the need
to consult collections in other countries also encourages such
collaborations. The need to recognize our responsibilities under
the Convention on Biological Diversity also means that collaboration
with workers in relevant countries is essential. However, the
point needs to be made that building large teams of collaborators
should not suppress the opportunity for independent research.
Taxonomy, like any science, depends upon the robust testing of
hypotheses and consensus only arrived at, if at all, through widespread
acceptance of well founded research.
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?
6.1 DNA sequencing and other molecular characterization
methods have been shown to have tremendous potential in systematics
and the RHS has been keen to apply these to its work where possible.
6.2 For its advisory service, the RHS makes
use of sequencing to identify isolates of the fungal pathogens
Pythium and Phytophthora, which is dependent upon
the sequence database of Phytophthora species built up
by the Scottish Crops Research Institute. For these taxa identification
based on morphology is problematic and use of sequence data far
more reliable. It has, in turn, revealed a hidden diversity of
these organisms in our gardens.
6.3 For horticultural taxonomy, it offers
the possibility of providing an objective method for characterizing
cultivars distinguished normally by subjective and possibly unreliable
features. This is significant, not only for conservation, but
also for commercial reasons where Plant Breeders' Rights are being
assigned or where the identity of a plant is disputed (for instance
in cases taken to Trading Standards). The RHS is aware that a
significant amount of research in this area is being carried out
in some European countries and in the Far East but little, so
far, in the UK.
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?
7.1 As stated in 1.4 above, the provision
of large scale data sets on the internet has been and continues
to be a major benefit to others, not just taxonomists, world-wide.
This kind of information can be greatly enhanced by linking to
other related datasets, creating a seamless reference for users
(a "portal", "gateway" or "repository").
This is the approach that the RHS aims to develop when linking
its plant names data to data sources provided by other collaborating
organizations, to provide a portal for cultivated plant conservation.
7.2 The increasing availability of scanned
taxonomic literature online is to be much welcomed. Much of this
literature is rare, only being found in a few institutions around
the world and is difficult to obtain, especially for those working
in less developed countries. Ready access to these scanned images,
just as with scanned images of specimens (8.2 below) will do much
to increase efficiency in research. Institutions holding such
literature need to be encouraged to do more to make it available.
7.3 The RHS supports the efforts of TDWG
(the Taxonomic Databases Working Group), which is an international
group, to promote standardization of data structure to facilitate
the exchange and linkage of taxonomic data.
8. What is the role of the major regional
museums and collections? How are taxonomic collections curated
and funded?
8.1 The UK has an almost unique tradition
of maintaining extensive collections of specimens and has more
herbaria listed in Index Herbariorum than any other country
in the world. Some of these, especially the regional museums (such
as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow etc.) contain collections of
international significance. These museums now have an important
role of take on collections from smaller herbaria when these are
no longer supported and need to be re-housed. While some universities
have disposed of their herbaria as taxonomic expertise has been
lost or is no longer a priority (for instance most recently at
Leeds) others, such as Oxford, have invested heavily in upgrading
facilities and has an active research programme. Funding for regional
museums should reflect the importance of being able to absorb
such collections without any deleterious effect on curation.
8.2 An important consideration is access
to collections. The widespread availability of digital imaging
means that it is now conceivable to database and create images
of all specimens, or in larger collections the significant specimens,
in a herbarium. These can be provided on the internet as a resource
for researchers and can, potentially, reduce the need for physical
examination of specimens, reducing costs and possible damage to
the specimens. However, while digital imaging can greatly enhance
research, it cannot be seen as a substitute for the physical preservation
of specimens. A priority for collections must be to undertake
this work and for collections in the UK to link their images in
a virtual herbarium. This has already been achieved in Australia
(see http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh).
8.3 The RHS has the leading horticultural
herbarium in the UK, containing over 58K specimens, connected
to images (over 30K). The herbarium is databased and well curated,
but is constrained in its capacity to expand and meet its remit
to document plants in cultivation in the UK (especially NCCPG
national collections) and in other temperate regions. The herbarium
is core-funded by the RHS and receives no financial support from
external sources.
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?
9.1 The RHS has no evidence to offer on
this question.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based
taxonomy information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
10.1 The RHS has no evidence to offer on
this question.
11. How does the taxonomic community engage
with the non-taxonomic community? What role do field studies play?
11.1 The need for greater understanding
of need for systematics amongst the public, as users of names
of organisms, is critical for the future of systematic research.
It seems widely accepted that taxonomists do not communicate their
work effectively to a non technical audience, but there are good
examples where the public can be engaged in taxonomic effort,
and there is a continuing interest in finding out more about particular
groups of organisms. One example that highlights this is the Natural
History Museum's bluebell survey, to clarify the question of the
status of the supposed invasive hybrid. Through their website,
the public have been provided with a simple means to identify
the three types of bluebell and send in their results.
11.2 As noted in 3.1, the RHS sees itself
as having an important role in engaging with the non-taxonomic
community. As Britain's leading horticultural charity with over
360,000 members, and linked to over 2,000 affiliated societies,
the Society is in a good position to put systematic research to
practical use. One particular area can be highlighted but it should
be emphasized that the RHS uses taxonomic outputs for all the
kinds of organisms that affect gardens and plants. A specific
output from the RHS horticultural database is the RHS Plant
Finder, published every year as a book and on the website.
Not only is it a source on where plants can be found it is now
seen as a source on the correct nomenclature of cultivated plants,
not just in the UK either. This is an important service for the
users of systematics (ie plant names) and acts as a means to stabilize
and harmonize cultivated plant names.
SKILLS BASE
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained
taxonomists working in UK universities and other organisations?
12.1 The RHS employs 8 trained botanists
(6 at PhD level, 2 at MSc level) that are involved to varying
degrees with taxonomic research. It is a relatively young age
range (mid 20s to early 50s) for systematics in the UK. It also
employs 2 entomologists and 3 plant pathologists who are involved
in identification work but do not generally undertake taxonomic
research.
The Sir Harold Hillier Arboretum in Hampshire
employs one botanist who is a skilled horticultural taxonomist,
but is in his late 50s.
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?
13.1 This is a complex situation and, in
some ways, is a vicious circle: the lack of jobs, clear career
structure and recognition for systematists do not encourage young
people to pursue their vocation in this area; the schools, where
this kind of interest should be nurtured, have little information
or idea of how to support students wishing to develop their interests
in taxonomy (and the future taxonomists generally show some inclination
in that direction by GCSE and A level stage); and the universities
have tended to move away from what is regarded as traditional
kinds of knowledge and merge whole-organism departments (zoology,
botany etc.) into more generalist departments such as biomedical
sciences. This is undoubtedly stimulated by the Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE) which does not favour systematics. The principal
difficulty remains, however, the lack of employment in systematic
research in the UK which leads to the loss of trained systematists
to other kinds of employment or to pursue their careers overseas.
13.2 The contraction of expertise over the
past two or three decades, the increasing age of existing taxonomists
and the low levels of recruitment mean that expertise is being
lost which should be passed onto younger taxonomists. This will
become critical where major groups have such small numbers of
experts (see 1.3 above) and the total loss of this expertise is
now becoming a distinct possibility. Once lost, it is hard to
regain and the effects may only become apparent at a later stage.
13.3 The RHS works with the University of
Reading, through the Plant Diversity MSc, by sponsoring a place
on the course, to promote horticultural taxonomy and provide training
for new taxonomists. We also contribute to the funding of two
PhDs at RBG Edinburgh, to support horticultural taxonomic elements
to botanical research. Given the relatively large number of cultivated
plants and the importance of horticulture in the UK, the RHS considers
that the current level of capacity is insufficient to meet current
or future needs. Horticultural taxonomy is still an actively developing
discipline, benefiting from the advances made in related research
but the resources are needed to make best advantage of these opportunities.
4 February 2008
| 
