Memorandum submitted by the UK Biodiversity
Research Advisory Group & the Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee
of the UK GECC[31]
The UK BRAG exists to
(1)
identify, promote and facilitate biodiversity research
to support UK and individual country biodiversity action plan
commitments;
(3)
contribute to effective biodiversity research networking
in the UK, leading to increased interdisciplinary capacity; and
The membership of the UK BRAG represents UK
biodiversity researchers, funders and practitioners.
The GBSC exists to:
(1)
ensure that Government policy on global biodiversity
conservation is both sufficiently informed by, and informs the
work undertaken to develop the science base;
(2)
identify significant gaps in scientific understanding
of global biodiversity change and propose options for addressing
them, including through collaborative programmes with EU and other
international players;
(3)
identify and review emerging scientific questions
concerning global biodiversity, evaluate their significance and
make recommendations;
(4)
review the effectiveness of the national capacity,
capability and performance in this area;
(5)
recommend a lead Department/Agency in areas of science
and technology, where responsibility is unclear;
(6)
improve the evidence base and promote wider understanding
across Government of global biodiversity science issues;
(7)
recommend strategic priorities for UK and EU science
relating to global biodiversity, and
Both the UK BRAG and the GBSC are under Defra
Chairmanship, with a Secretariat based in the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee. Their membership represents UK biodiversity researchers,
funders and practitioners, including members from statutory conservation
agencies, academia, the collections, the Research Councils and
government departments (Defra, DfID, FCO).
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?
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
1.1 Taxonomy and systematics research in
the UK addresses:
— molecular techniques to establish
phylogenetic relationships of animal or plant families,
— stabilising the names used for species,
thus supporting those who use those names,
— establishing whether a set of organisms
justify specific or sub specific status and consequently how they
should be treated under UK conservation law,
— developing field-guides to British
organisms to assist students, amateurs and environmental managers.
THE CURRENT
STATE OF
TAXONOMY AND
SYSTEMATICS
1.2 The considered view of members of the
two groups is that the status of taxonomy and systematics has
continued to deteriorate overall, but there is limited quantitative
evidence (ie publication data, numbers of specialists, total expenditure)
to back this up (but see Q12). As an example, the situation with
respect to cryptogamic plants, lichens and fungi is described
in Annex 1.
| Box 1 Lichenology in Scotland: a case study in revival
|
| Mycology is a discipline that has significantly declined with an ageing cohort of expertise and no new recruitment. However, it is possible to make significant improvements with relatively small investments, as demonstrated by the revival of lichenology in Scotland. In 2002, RBGE employed only one lichen taxonomist, insufficient to deliver national conservation targets for lichens in Scotland. Succession planning at RBGE has capitalised on the opportunity for collaboration between its lichen taxonomist and a lichen ecologist, invigorating research in conservation biology and climate impacts; the two lichenologists have since won external funding for post doctoral research and studentships. SNH provided funds to the British Lichen Society to support the training of lichen apprentices by the RBGE taxonomist, which has provided a core of individuals capable of making conservation assessments and delivering site condition monitoring on lichens.
|
|
RESEARCH
1.3 There is no UK-wide strategic plan for systematics
and taxonomic research as such, but UK BRAG has considered requirements
and identified priority topics for action by its members (see
box 2). The three major taxonomic institutions (NHM, RBGK, RBGE)
continue to maintain taxonomy and systematics capability, and
apply this expertise, eg to provide some support to national and
international conservation strategies. While they are funded through
different areas of government (DCMS, Defra and Scottish Government),
and each institution has its individual research priorities, they
have a long tradition of cooperation.
1.4 The Taxonomic Needs Assessment for Conservation
in the UK (Taylor, 2006[32])
was based on survey responses from ninety-nine organisations in
the UK and its Overseas Territories, and identified needs in relation
to habitat requirements of animals/plants; information on local
species distributions; information on regional species distributions;
GIS data; information on name changes; lists of invasive alien
species; specialised taxonomic identification services. These
were identified as "very important" by more than a third
of respondents, and as "not accessible" by a fifth or
more of respondents.
| Box 2 UK BRAG priorities in relation to taxonomy and systematics research
|
| The UK BRAG has identified an urgent need, in the face of environmental change, to improve our knowledge of the contribution of biodiversity to the functioning, resilience and stability of ecosystems, and the delivery of goods and services on which we depend. Taxonomy and systematics are essential underpinning to such research. UK BRAG priorities requiring direct or indirect taxonomic and/or systematic research input include:
|
| — microbial community structure and function in a range of ecosystems
|
| — the impact of environmental changes (climate change, land use change, non-native species, over-exploitation, pollution) on ecosystem functions through changes in biodiversity
|
| — the response of species and populations to large-scale environmental change
|
| — the effect of loss of species from systems
|
| — key indicators and surrogates of biodiversity status
|
| — the fitness consequences of genetic isolation v population networks in the context of different population sizes, environmental gradients and species attributes
|
| — conservation of divergent intra-specific endemic lineages
|
| — high-throughput genetic tools for species identification and discovery
|
| — action plans to cope with the challenges for taxonomically complex groups and those undergoing diversification
|
| — novel techniques (eg DNA bar-coding) for tracing the origin of introduced species
|
| — impacts of climate changes on soil biodiversity
|
| — the functional role of biota in marine and freshwater sediments
|
| — whether local genetic adaptation within species limits adaptation to climate change
|
|
BARRIERS TO
BE OVERCOME
1.6 We consider that recent technological advances enable
us to address any of these problems and that advances will be
dependent on funding and capacity (for an example, see the UK
BRAG submission concerning mycology in the UK). The funding issues
are taken up in section 2.
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?
THE CONTRIBUTION
OF SYSTEMATICS
AND TAXONOMY
2.1 BRAG / GBSC consider that taxonomy is a necessary
underpinning for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,
ecosystem services and climate change in the UK and globally.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) uses the term "taxonomic
impediment [to implementing the Convention]", and the decisions
accepted by the Parties to the CBD, including the UK, aim to address
provision of taxonomic information, infrastructure and expertise.
2.2 The benefits of taxonomy to non-taxonomic sectors
are considerable; some case studies can be accessed at http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/caseStudies/caseStudies/list.jsp.
Where the financial impact of use of taxonomic information has
been assessed in these case-studies, the benefits routinely run
into millions of pounds and cost benefit ratio ranges from 1:50
to 1:700! Examples are listed in Annex 2.
2.3 It is appropriate to note that none of these benefits
could have been delivered without pre-existing taxonomic infrastructure,
research and skills. Furthermore, without a reliable inventory,
efforts to conserve biodiversity are greatly hampered. The Encylopedia
of Life project (http://www.eol.org/home.html) aims to address
this, and is supported through the Biodiversity Heritage Library
(http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/) in which both NHM and RBGK
are partners.
RECOGNITION IN
THE FUNDING
PROCESS
2.4 Research funding can come either from the Research
Councils, government departments and agencies, or the voluntary
sector. The Research Councils' mandates prioritise innovative
research at the cutting edge of science; systematics and taxonomic
research rarely fall in this category. Consequently, research
is largely funded through various mechanisms in association with
the users, such as the conservation agencies and the Darwin Initiative.
2.5 We are concerned that there is a lack of clarity
concerning `cutting edge' and `basic' science, in terms of who
the users are, who funds each, and how they rate as institutional
priorities. As a consequence of this confused picture, UK research
on genetic barcoding has slipped behind progress made elsewhere,
eg the Canadian Centre for DNA barcoding (http://www.dnabarcoding.ca/).
2.6 In the review of eligibility to Research Council
funding in 2006, NHM, RBGK and RBGE became ineligible for responsive
mode funding from BBSRC. This put a halt on proposals submitted
or under development. On appeal, all three institutes have now
regained access to this funding stream; both NERC and BBSRC have
clarified their commitment to biodiversity research and are keen
to engage with the taxonomic community, as evidenced through their
co-funding of the Systematics Research Fund and the Collaborative
Scheme for Systematics Research. This is greatly welcomed.
2.7 There is little recognition of the need for systematics
in the European Union Framework Programmes. There are no relevant
topics under the latest EU FP7 call for Theme 2: Food, Agriculture
and Fisheries, and Biotechnology. Under the latest call for Theme
6: Environment, Area 6.2.1.4: Biodiversity, there is a provision
for coordination and support actions on Rehabilitation of data
from biodiversity-related projects funded under previous framework
programmes. While this project should contribute to initiatives
to develop biodiversity related data infrastructures, eg LIFEWATCH,
there is no specific reference to taxonomy or systematics research.
INTEGRATION IN
OTHER RESEARCH
AREAS
2.8 The integration of taxonomy with other sectors is
vital, and it is significant that biodiversity is now a key area
for funding within both NERC and BBSRC. Taxonomy and systematics
are well integrated across a wide range of research activities,
underpinning work on biodiversity, climate change and the provision
of ecosystem goods and services. In many cases, advances cannot
be made without taxonomic knowledge.
2.6 Taxonomic expertise plays an important role in agriculture,
in the identification of non-native invasive species (such as
plant and animal pests & pathogens). Taxonomic data have also
been applied in climate change research, where modelling capabilities
of programmes such as MONARCH have been restricted by limited
biological information.
2.7 There are significant national gaps in taxonomic
knowledge needed to underpin research in the marine environment
(for example, relevant to the proposed Marine Bill) particularly
in relation to marine fungi, which are important in terms of impacts
of increased acidification (an issue highlighted by the GBSC)
and microbial communities in marine sediments (an issue highlighted
by UK BRAG).
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?
MEETING THE
NEEDS OF
THE USER
COMMUNITY
3.1 The needs of the user community have been reviewed
in the UK Taxonomic Needs Assessment, undertaken by NHM
as a contribution to the Global Taxonomy Initiative. The UK BRAG
and the GBSC also provide for identification of user needs and
priorities for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
in the context of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and international
commitments. The needs of other users, at regional or local level,
including the public, are more difficult to identify and coordinate.
3.2 A number of positive steps have already been taken
by the individual institutions, eg RBGE has carried out a review
of priorities, and has had increased funds for more effective
communication (to both the public and to other scientific sectors).
THE NEED
FOR A
COORDINATION BODY:
PROGRESS
3.3 We believe that there remains a need for improved
mechanisms to make user needs known to the taxonomic community
and funding bodies. To some extent this can be achieved through
existing bodies; UK BRAG and the GBSC, have both addressed taxonomic
issues but their remits extend only to biodiversity conservation,
rather than wider issues concerned with agriculture, fisheries
or health.
3.4 Individual taxonomists communicate well, as do their
institutions. For example, the Systematics Association promotes
collaborative research and organises a varied programme of international
conferences on key themes where taxonomy and systematics have
an important role to play. A number of institutions contribute
to the Plant Conservation Working Group, genetics sub-group (http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/pcwg/),
which has served as a model example of how to bring together conservation
geneticists and practitioners. It should be noted that the intellectual
capacity exists to do more, but this is limited by a shortage
of staff resources (see comments in answer to Q12 and Q13).
3.5 Much taxonomic support for non-academic research
and environmental activities still comes from the amateur community.
However, it is difficult to discern the extent, and also how it
may be managed sustainably. Since users rely on this resource,
there is a risk if no attempt is made to understand or coordinate
it. Some progress has been made to support the volunteer community
in the UK, through development of the National Biodiversity Network
(NBN), although here the focus is on information exchange rather
than taxonomic skills.
MAKING A
CONTRIBUTION TO
POLICY
3.6 The UK Darwin Initiative (http://www.darwin.gov.uk/)
is aligned to CBD implementation, and has so far funded over 50
projects with a strong taxonomic component, more or less aligned
with the Global Taxonomy Initiative (http://www.darwin.gov.uk/downloads/briefing_notes/taxonomy.pdf).
The projects have generally included a strong element of capacity
building in taxonomy, and produced both field guides and papers,
and also improvements to collections of specimens and recommendations
to governments on protected areas and conservation.
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 Supplying the needs identified by the UK Taxonomic
Needs Assessment (see box 2 above), would probably require
significant funding but this work has not been costed. Provision
of additional funding for `taxonomy' would need to be clearly
targeted & prioritised. Priorities are identified below.
4.2 Digitising the UK collections of flora and fauna
would clearly be of value for example in relation to the important
link between climate change and invasive alien species, or the
use of digitised data and appropriate modelling to predict distributions
under different scenarios. Some limited investments are being
made through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)
and the NBN, but here the UK funders have put more emphasis on
sharing information about biological records than collections.
4.3 Identification keys and field guides were noted as
being of high importance in the UK taxonomic needs assessment
by 70 per cent of respondents (Taylor, 2006), but many respondents
noted they were not accessible or, are out of date. About half
of the British insect fauna has never been covered by an identification
guide. Funding for their production is critical in an environment
of increasing numbers of Invasive Alien Species, and where taxonomic
names change.
4.4 European funding sources support good networking
activities, but their support for actual research is less good.
The work of the Australian Virtual Herbarium, which includes both
digitising and databasing activities, is an integral part of their
science funding (see http://www.chah.gov.au/avh/avh.html for details).
In contrast, databasing projects in the UK tend to be funded by
charities and involve the use of volunteers.
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?
FUNDING COMPARISONS
5.1 We provide some examples below:
| Box 3 Mexico's commitment to CONABIO, and the Swedish Taxonomy Initiative
|
| In Mexico, CONABIO has been set up to create a national inventory of biodiversity and to "advise governmental agencies, as well as social and private sectors on technical and applied research aspects regarding the use and conservation of biological resources.". The Mexican Government is a major user of CONABIO, although Business also makes use of their data. The financial resources of CONABIO are mainly provided by the Federal Government, and are administrated through a private trust fund. This trust fund can receive national and foreign deductible donations, monetary or non-monetary contributions. CONABIO's annual budget has been on average US$3 million, plus about 30 percent extra in earmarked grants from a variety of national and international agencies.
|
| The Swedish Taxonomy Initiative (STI) is an All Taxon Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI) of Sweden, coordinated by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken) in collaboration with Swedish universities and natural history museums. Started in 2002 and fully funded from 2005, the project aims to completely chart the flora and fauna of Sweden within 20 years. The budget in 2006 was ca $9.3 million.
|
|
GREATER INTERNATIONAL
COLLABORATION
5.2 More collaboration would facilitate an improved understanding
of the UK flora in its continental context. As an exemplar of
good practice, the Euro+Med Plantbase project (http://www.euromed.org.uk/),
which draws together different nomenclatures and uses accepted
standards, demonstrates many of the characteristics needed for
successful future collaboration.
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 The impact of developments in DNA sequencing, genomics
and other new technologies has been better quality results than
10 years ago, eg angiosperm phylogeny, leading to reorganisation
of herbaria (Haston, 2007[33]).
Such new technologies are needed to create a rate-change in our
work, but the technologies must be accompanied by the funding
to put them to use, not just develop them.
EMBRACING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES
6.2 The major taxonomic institutions are using molecular
techniques to both hypothesise phylogeny and using DNA barcoding,
to provide novel identification methods and enable association
of morphologically very different life stages. These techniques
may enable us to greatly increase the rate of discovery of biodiversity.
There will still be a need to apply traditional methods to provide
in-depth information and output tailored to certain user needs,
and also to link units discovered through molecular means to currently
known taxa.
6.3 The growth of bioinformatics techniques means that
we have the potential to digitise data and link disparate data
sources together to greatly increase access and analytical efficiency,
and remove some of the blocks and barriers to taxonomic information
generation and dissemination. The global importance of bioinformatics
is described in Annex 3.
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 The state of local and national schemes is good for
some taxa, but less so for others. The UK is well-served by the
Biological Record Centre (hosted by the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology), many Local Record Centres (hosted by local authorities
and/or local volunteer organisations) and brought together by
the NBN (http://www.nbn.org.uk/). The NBN is specifically designed
to meet the needs of users at national and local scales. A huge
diversity of contributions are made to NBN, largely by volunteers,
backed up (in some cases) by taxonomic specialists, who provide
verification. NBN contributes nearly 15million records to the
GBIF from 113 different datasets / recording schemes around the
UK. The NBN receives funding from a number of government departments
and agencies. It employs a distributed data model, whereby data
are held and maintained by the data provider organisations. This
can be more efficient than alternative models, but carries risks
of data loss and orphan datasets. Problems with identification
can mean that some taxa are not covered.
8. What is the role of the major regional museums and collections?
How are taxonomic collections curated and funded?
8.1 This is not a question on which the UK BRAG and the
GBSC can provide an answer. However, if amateur taxonomists are
to provide a component of UK taxonomic resources, local museums
are likely to have an important role in supporting and sustaining
this community.
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?
DEVELOPING A
WEB-BASED
TAXONOMY
9.1 There are a number of different aspects of web-based
taxonomy: revisionary taxonomy; specialist taxonomic pages; public-use
pages; taxon-centred sites; databases. A number of examples are
given in Annex 4, and illustrate how some of these are being addressed,
at a national, European and global scale.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based taxonomy
information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
10.1 Crucially, datasets need to improve ease of use
and accessibility for end-users. At present, many web-based systems
are of only limited help in identifying a specimen. Good examples
are the Discover Life project and the BSBI online keys
(see comments in answer to Q9).
11. How does the taxonomic community engage with the non-taxonomic
community? What role do field studies play?
11.1 The taxonomic community engages widely with the
non-taxonomic and user community. However interactions are limited
by available resources. Engagement is a two-way process, requiring
the non-taxonomic community to look for and exploit opportunities
for collaboration. We acknowledge that there are very real benefits
from such interactions (eg engagement with ecologists, the public
etc.).
11.2 Examples include: The Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation, CITES enforcement (eg CITES timbers—see box,
below), the Forensic Science Service, the National Poisons Information
Service, etc.
| Box 4 Taxonomic expertise and traded or poisonous species
|
| Taxonomic support to the Convention of Trade in Endangered Species (CITES, http://www.ukcites.gov.uk/default.asp) can be especially important in terms of identification of timbers such as ramin and mahogany, and also in policing the global trade in orchids. Without taxonomic expertise, enforcement would be impossible. Taxonomic expertise is also called upon to advise the National Poisons Information Service, while some major institutions give advice on poisonous plants and fungi to appropriate medical institutions, eg Guys hospital, London.
|
|
SKILLS BASE
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained taxonomists
working in UK universities and other organisations?
12.1 In a separate submission, the UK BRAG has provided
some figures for mycology. The UK Systematics Forum report, The
Web of Life: a Strategy for Systematic Biology in the United Kingdom
(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/uksf/web_of_life/summary/index.htm)
provides figures on training and education (see Q13). Numbers
have undoubtedly declined further since the late 1990s, when this
report was written.
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 The UK Taxonomic Needs Assessment (Taylor,
2006) pointed out that training & education were insufficient
to meet current or future needs:
— too few staff are coming through the education
system with whole-organism biology training;
— obtaining research grants to support taxonomic
PhDs is difficult;
— a need for early training in taxonomy, from Key
Stages 2 and 3 upwards;
— the National Curriculum shows a lack of commitment
to the natural sciences, and fieldwork in particular; and
— a reliance on the amateur community for delivery
of taxonomic information, the sustainability of which depends
in part on training in secondary and tertiary education.
13.2 In addition to a need for a greater commitment to
the teaching of taxonomy and systematics, both through the National
Curriculum and within the university sector, there need to be
opportunities for career progression for graduates.
APPENDICES
Annex 1: The current state of taxonomy and systematics—cryptogamic
plants, lichens and fungi
With respect to cryptogamic plants (algae, mosses liverworts,
ferns), lichens and fungi, as an important example, UK systematics
research and taxonomy is patchy in coverage, quality and achievements.
Many individuals and small groups are highly respected, both nationally
and internationally. They make valued contributions to the discovery,
description and cataloguing of cryptogam diversity, they examine
the evolution and speciation of cryptogams, to provide basic understanding
of the origins and maintenance of cryptogam biodiversity, and
they provide identification tools and services for fellow professionals
and amateurs. Current research priorities are more diverse than
in flowering plants. Aspects that have approached consensus in
many macroscopic organisms (such as the nature and circumscription
of species) remain controversial in most cryptogam groups and
they therefore remain the focus of research. However, it has also
been important for the health of the subject to engage with advances
in molecular technology, for classification and identification.
Outside the principal taxonomic research institutes and in the
universities, taxonomic and systematic research on cryptogams
and fungi is almost defunct; with the principal exceptions being
a few species (eg among phytoplankton) that have reached `model
system' status because of their perceived ecological or economic
importance.
Annex 2: Examples of the benefits of taxonomy to non-taxonomic
sectors
— Identification of a mealybug attacking cassava
in Africa and its natural enemy in South America, a project involving
UK taxonomists and which has led to savings of between $8 and
$20 billion (case study #2).
— Development of identification and monitoring tools
for marine micro-algae as a response to regulations linked to
marketing seafood products has led to considerable benefits, and
is a good example of governments working together and with funding
bodies to secure a benefit from taxonomy (case study #11).
— Use of intensive surveys and authoritative identifications
of the specimens enabled a marine biodiversity hotspot to be recognised
off New Zealand in 1999, and its subsequent preservation (case
study #25)
— Floating water fern (Azolla filiculoides)
has been a problem in South African waterways, increasing flood
risks, threatening livestock and aquatic biodiversity. Fragmentation
of the weed fronds made control by mechanical means virtually
impossible. A weevil species was found to feed only on Azolla,
and since its release the weevil has brought even the most heavily
infested sites under control within a matter of months, without
the need for chemicals or further control measures. Identification
of an effective biological control agent for Azolla depended
on expert taxonomic work. (case study #26)
— Data from specimens in museums have been used
to assess the efficiency of protected areas to conserve all the
significant biodiversity, eg Ortega-Huerta, M.A. & Peterson,
A.T., 2004, Modelling spatial patterns on biodiversity for conservation
prioritization in North-eastern Mexico. Diversity and Distributions,
10, 39-54.
Annex 3: The global importance of bioinformatics
The threats posed by climate change and invasive alien species,
mean that the global biota is of potential interest to every country
in the world, and thus we need a global system. This will include
converting specimen data into digital form and geo-referencing
them, digitising images and linking them to appropriate names,
creating digital catalogues of names. UK institutions have provided
hundreds of thousands of verified names and associated taxonomic
/ nomenclatural data to the world, names, for example, mediated
through the UK-founded Species 2000 and thence to GBIF
and specimen data through NBN and GBIF. Other activities including
digitising legacy taxonomic literature (the Biodiversity Heritage
Library project includes UK partners), and applying XML schemas
to this to itemise the information and data included in an interoperable
manner to other data sources (INOTAXA, Integrated Open Taxonomic
Access is a UK-USA partnership, in which a web workspace allows
resources to be accessed simultaneously according to user-defined
needs), using international standards—see TDWG, Biodiversity
Information Standards http://www.tdwg.org/, which includes significant
UK participation. Although the technology is improving impressively,
resources to populate the systems with data to capitalise on their
efficiency are not increasing in step.
Annex 4: Examples of the development of a web-based taxonomy
— NERC has provided funding through its e-science
initiative to support the CATE project (Creating a Taxonomic e-Science),
which involves a consortium comprising NHM, RBGK, the University
of Oxford, and Imperial College London. The objective is to test
the feasibility of a web-based, consensus taxonomy using two model
groups.
— EDIT, the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy
(http://www.e-taxonomy.eu/) is an EU-funded Network of Excellence
bringing together 27 European, North American and Russian institutions
to reduce fragmentation in taxonomic research and expertise and
coordinate the European contribution to the global taxonomic effort,
particularly the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI).
— IPNI, the International Plant Names Index (http://www.ipni.org/)
provides a global database of the names and bibliographical details
of all seed plants, ferns and fern allies; and is a product of
collaboration between RBGK, The Harvard University Herbaria and
the Australian National Herbarium.
— The point needs to be made, however, that such
initiatives do not necessarily help people to identify things.
To this end, the Discover Life project (hosted by the University
of Georgia, the Missouri Botanical Garden, and the Smithsonian
Tropical Research Institute) is particularly valuable (http://www.discoverlife.org/).
In the UK, the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) online
keys are a good example of a web-based system designed for a variety
of end-users (http://www.botanicalkeys.co.uk/flora/).
31
The UK Global Environmental Change Committee www.ukgecc.org Back
32
Taylor, A. (2006) United Kingdom Taxonomic Needs Assessment.
Natural History Museum/Defra. 23/02/2006. Taxonomy for Ghana's
development and conservation-assessing the needs. Ghana-UK Project
2006-7. Supported by the WSSD Implementation Fund of Defra (UK). Back
33
Haston, E., Richardson, J. E., Stevens, P. F., Chase, M. W., Harris,
D. J. (2007). "A linear sequence of Angiosperm Phylogeny
Group II families". Taxon 56 (1): 7-12 Back
|
