Post on 22-Nov-2014
description
EVALUATING NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS USE IN ONE UNIVERSITY MUSEUMBethany AbrahamsonMuseum of Southwestern Biology
University of New Mexico
Advisors: Kelly Miller, Tim Lowrey, Joe Cook
OUTLINE
Analyzing use of natural history collections (NHCs) through time Challenges of analysis Metrics
Methods and Results Discussion
Conclusions What we can learn The next step
A NEW WAY OF LOOKING AT NATURAL HISTORY COLLECTIONS
Collections are important, people want to know Funding groups and administrators Other scientists The public
The digital revolution “Museums are for taxonomy” Diversification of use
Current ways of informing about NHC importance Reviews, editorials
A new method: Analysis
ANALYSIS
Quantifying NHC impact on science
Patterns Change over time An exploratory
study
Figure Courtesy of MSB Arthropods
WHY STUDY COLLECTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM’S PERSPECTIVE?
Explore measures of NHC impact Make collections (and collections records) more
useful to researchers and analysts
Figure courtesy of MSB Arthropods
CASE STUDY: MUSEUM OF SOUTHWESTERN BIOLOGY
University of New Mexico 4,500,000++ specimens “Regional”, major
holdings from American Southwest, Central/South America, and worldwide
Grown in size and scope of collections since early 1990s
Six of ten divisions: Arthropods! Birds Fishes Herbarium Mammals Reptiles and Amphibians
CHALLENGES OF NHC ANALYSIS: COMPARING ARTHROPODS TO VERTEBRATES AND BEYOND….
Different collections research applications Different collection management methods Different curator priorities
Figure courtesy of MSB Arthropods
However, collections do have metrics that are common across divisions…
PUBLICATIONS
Journal articles, books, gray literature (reports, etc.) What fields of study specimens are impacting
LOANS
Temporary or long-term loans, transfers of tissues What species are used, where they were collected
EXPECTED TRENDS
Publications New, innovative studies increase, traditional uses decrease?
Systematics? Collection-specific
Loans Loans of local specimens predominate MSB growth = increased loans of non-NM specimens over
time
PUBLICATIONS 1,387 publications over time (1940-May 2013)
From collection managers, journal databases Titles, journal titles, and article keywords searched Search phrases Keyword Groups (Keywords)
Some publications received more than one keyword Simplified N-gram/content analysis
Figure Courtesy of Tom Giermakowski
“Female reproductive tract form drives the evolution of complex sperm morphology.”
KEYWORDS
1. Biogeography
2. Conservation
3. Disease
4. Ecology
5. Evolution
6. Genetics
7. Life History
8. Morphology
9. Systematics
10. Variation
“speciation”
“evol”
“adapt”
Search phrases
LOANS
1,784 loan records over time (1968-May 2013) 54,509+ specimens loaned Locations (state/province) recorded
Figure Courtesy of Tom Giermakowski
PUBLICATIONS
19401945
19491954
19581962
19661970
19741978
19821986
19901994
19982002
20062010
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Publication Titles Produced Each Year
Year
Nu
mb
er o
f P
ub
lica
tion
s
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Arthropods Increasing
Evolution (Spearman Signed-Rank, ns)
Morphology (ns) Decreasing
Life History (P<0.001)
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
ArthropodsProportion of Keywords v. Decade
EvolutionLife HistoryMorphology
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Birds Increasing
Evolution (ns) Genetics (ns)
Decreasing Disease (ns) Variation (ns)
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
BirdsProportion of Keywords v. Decade
DiseaseEvolutionGeneticsVariation
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Fishes Increasing
Conservation (P<0.05)
Genetics (ns) Decreasing
Ecology (P<0.05)
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
FishesProportion of Keywords v. Decade
ConservationEcologyGenetics
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Herbarium Increasing
Ecology (ns) Morphology (ns)
2000-2009 2010-20130
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
HerbariumProportion of Keywords v. Decade
EcologyMorphology
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Mammals Increasing
Genetics (P<0.05)
Systematics (P<0.05)
Decreasing Life History
(P<0.05)
1940-
1949
1950-
1959
1960-
1969
1970-
1979
1980-
1989
1990-
1999
2000-
2009
2010-
2013
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
MammalsProportion of Keywords v. Decade
Life History
Genetics
Systematics
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY OVER TIME?
Reptiles and Amphibians
Increasing Evolution (P<0.05)
Decreasing Morphology
(P<0.05)
1960-
1969
1970-
1979
1980-
1989
1990-
1999
2000-
2009
2010-
2013
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Reptiles and AmphibiansProportion of Keywords v. Decade
EvolutionMorphology
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d
HOW DOES THE ARTHROPODS DIVISION COMPARE TO OTHERS OVERALL?
1940-1949
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2Proportion of Keyword “Systematics” vs. Decade
Arthropods
Birds
Fishes
Herbarium
Mammals
Reptiles and Amphibians
Decade
Pro
por
tion
Key
wor
d:
Sys
tem
atic
s
DO CURATORS AFFECT THEIR PARTICULAR AREAS OF RESEARCH?
Systematics Evolution Evolution Biogeography Conservation0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6Proportion of Keyword Before/After Curator Hire
BeforeAfter
Research Interests
Pro
por
tion
Arthropods Birds Fishes Mammals Rept. and Amph.
DO THE PROPORTION OF LOANS OF SPECIMENS FROM NM CHANGE OVER TIME?
Most of the top species loaned were species that can be found in NM.
The proportion of loans of NM specimens have decreased over time.
19601970198019902000201020200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1R² = 0.657914655851958
Proportion Loans with NM specimens, To-tal Museum
Proportion NMExponential (Proportion NM)
Year
Pro
por
tion
ARE SPECIMENS FROM NM BEING LOANED MORE THAN OTHERS?
Arthropods Birds Fishes Herbarium Mammals Reptiles and Amphibians
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Proportion of Specimens Collected in NM
Specimens in Collection
Specimens Loaned
Division
Pro
por
tion
CONCLUSIONS: PUBLICATIONS Growth of papers over time Arthropods: Evolution,
Morphology (not Life History) Much yet to be discovered Arthropods leads
Systematics Curator
Age, size of collection are likely other factors
Trends toward new uses; away from traditional uses (except systematics!)
CONCLUSIONS: LOANS
Top species found in NM Overall decrease in NM
loans (Arthropods: even less)
Large regional collections are not only good as repositories for local specimens but also for specimens collected elsewhere Curator influence Figure courtesy of kellymillerlab.com
WHAT CAN WE LEARN?
Publications Good metric for NHC
relation to science Compiling
publications lists: difficult, but important
Keyword phrases pros and cons
Loans Patchy, unwieldy
format A kind of publication
What can arthropods collections do?
Digitization Tracking
Publications Search engines,
Changing journal policies
THERE IS MUCH (AND MORE) TO LEARN FROM COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS
Step 1: What I plan to do Parametric tests Effect of cultural trends More datasets Across museums,
museum types, science overall
Social science content analyses
Step 2: What we can take away Fill a gap in knowledge
for future researchers Use in other museums
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Advisors K. Miller, T. Lowrey, J. Cook
Collection managers D. Lightfoot, S. Brantley, A. Johnson, P. Tonne, A. Snyder,
J. Dunnam, and T. Giermakowski, D. McDonald Assistance
R. Mallis, N. Gilkey, M. Howland-Davis, S. Brantley, Y. Wei Several anonymous reviewers
This project will be completed May 2014 for a Master of Science degree in Biology.
QUESTIONS?