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?