Download house of lords science and technology committee

HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
CALL FOR EVIDENCE: SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY
For other Responses to consultations visit: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3908
For further information about Joint Nature Conservation Committee visit:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1729
0805
1
Consultation 0805
HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
CALL FOR EVIDENCE: SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY
Submission by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee
JNCC is the statutory adviser to Government on UK and international nature conservation.
Its work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological
features and sustaining natural systems. JNCC delivers the UK and international
responsibilities of the four country nature conservation agencies - Council for Nature
Conservation and the Countryside, the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and
Scottish Natural Heritage.
The state of systematics and taxonomy research
Q2.
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?
1.1
Biodiversity conservation is concerned with sustaining the full variety of life, from
biomes containing many species down to the genetic variation that is present within
individual species. Systematics is an essential tool that underpins biodiversity
conservation by providing a logical classification and framework for describing and
studying living organisms.
1.2
Biodiversity conservation depends upon the accurate definition of species, but it is
increasingly becoming realised that each level in the hierarchical classification of
living organisms is of value for conservation. Higher levels (genera, families and
above) group together related species that share common ancestors and many
biological properties. These shared properties can be used predictively to investigate
how related species can best be conserved. At lower levels (for species, and
segregates within species) inter-breeding organisms contain much genetic variation,
which is essential for their long-term survival. Discovering the extent and nature of
this variation is important when attempting to conserve threatened species with small
populations.
1.3
The accurate identification of species is fundamental to current biodiversity
conservation programmes in the UK, including in particular:
i.
in the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in Great Britain
and Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland. SSSIs
and ASSIs are the primary mechanisms for protected area-based nature
conservation in the UK, and are at the core of the UK's nature conservation
strategy;
ii.
species recovery and action programmes undertaken under the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan, where the accurate identification of species is
necessary to implement needed conservation action (including legal protection
and enforcement);
measuring progress towards halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010, which
iii.
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
2
Consultation 0805
is a key international obligation for the UK;
iv.
reporting on the conservation status of UK species of European Community
importance, which is an international obligation for the UK under the EC
Habitats Directive.
1.4
In addition to traditional taxonomy, there appears to be significant potential in
applying the rapidly-expanding field and knowledge of genomics to nature
conservation, and to our understanding of ecosystem services.
1.5
DNA sequencing has already proved to be of considerable value in the understanding
of the evolutionary relationships between organisms, including determining which
organisms are closely related, and their relative position on the evolutionary 'tree'.
The study of DNA characteristics has already revolutionised ideas about the nature
and categorisation of life-forms and is proving a considerable aid to traditional
taxonomy in the identification of species having otherwise very similar
characteristics.
1.6
Potentially, DNA sequencing also provides a way of identifying different microbial
species, 99% of which cannot be grown in laboratory cultures. However, given that
there are estimated to be very large numbers of 'species' of micro-organisms (probably
millions), the technique could be problematic to apply in practice. Another approach
currently being explored is to characterise the DNA of small samples of seawater and
soil, treating the whole sample as if it were an organism and endeavouring to predict
its ecological and environmental role. The facilities made available as a result of the
human genome project are helping to drive this work forward, but its potential may be
some way from being realised.
1.7
Perhaps more prosaically, genomics may help us to prioritise conservation action by
concentrating effort on taxa which are genetically quite distinct from others, as
opposed to endeavouring to conserve numbers of taxa which are genetically quite
similar. It would be regrettable to fail to take action to conserve species which were
genetically quite distinct from others, simply because we failed to recognise the fact.
1.8
JNCC considers that, in the future, there will be a need for both traditional taxonomic
expertise and also new approaches such as those referred to in 1.5 to 1.7 above.
Q3.
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 to the leading systematics research institutions
make both nationally and internationally?
2.1
Traditional systematics in the UK is marking time; it is not competing effectively for
funding with other biological sciences and is dwindling in relation to the needs of its
users. There is a declining population of professional systematists and funding is
probably also declining overall; new initiatives that have been attempted to improve
the situation have been inadequate for the task.
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
3
Consultation 0805
2.2
UK systematics has a complex organisational structure, with no single body
responsible for leading and developing the subject. The multiple users of systematics
in the UK are too diverse in their needs to be able to act effectively together in giving
the leadership and direction required. These users include biodiversity conservation,
ecological research, trade and industry, medicine, agriculture, forestry and education.
2.3
JNCC considers the fundamental problem lies in the lack of overall direction and
responsibility for UK systematics. JNCC is not aware of significant progress being
made to provide overall direction and responsibility for UK systematics since the
Select Committee's last report into this matter, and remains of the view that a single
Government Department needs to be given responsibility for this. Its responsibilities
should include: considering the range of taxonomic skills that will be required in the
future, identifying areas of projected shortfall in the supply of these skills, and
initiating action to ensure such shortfall is addressed. Co-ordination mechanisms,
however well-intentioned, are unlikely to meet this requirement.
2.4
JNCC and the country agencies assess the changing status of UK biodiversity,
working in partnership with research institutes, universities, national societies,
non-governmental organisations and expert individuals. The JNCC and country
agencies commission little systematic research, but instead seek to work in
partnership with professional and volunteer systematists to deliver checklists of UK
species and higher level taxa, as well as reliable ways of identifying these, to enable
their detection and effective conservation. These activities should be seen in both
their national and international contexts, because, increasingly, biodiversity
conservation is working via international conventions (such as the Convention on
Biological Diversity) and Directives of the European Union (the Birds Directive and
the Habitats Directive).
2.5
Systematics enables effective sharing of information about species by establishing an
internationally-recognised system for describing, naming and classifying taxa. Both
biodiversity conservation and systematics rely upon networking and sharing
information, using checklists of named species to ensure that dispersed sources of
information can be located and used reliably. JNCC is a partner in the development
of the UK biodiversity information network, the National Biodiversity Network
(NBN), to share information about UK flora and fauna. There is a particular
association between JNCC and the Natural History Museum to deliver the species
dictionary for the NBN. It is important that UK biodiversity is understood in relation
to the changes taking place in the status and distribution of species in other countries,
which depends upon extensive sharing of information via networks.
2.6
UK research institutions and user bodies are attempting to fill the gap left by the
absence of clear direction and oversight by coming together to achieve improved
co-ordination and greater efficiency of effort, and the better direction of available
resources to meet needs. However, these endeavours tend to be somewhat ad hoc and
piecemeal.
2.7
JNCC considers that the UK contributes considerably to global systematics, via its
extensive collections, libraries and expertise. We are aware that many UK
institutions, including the Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew, make substantial contributions to biodiversity conservation internationally,
including through programmes such as the Government's Darwin Initiative. By far
the major part of UK biological collections and information, and associated expertise,
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
4
Consultation 0805
relate to species of overseas origin. UK institutions are actively engaged in
supporting biological conservation overseas by facilitating access to their collections,
contributing their expertise and assisting in knowledge transfer. The potential to
increase this contribution is enormous, were resources for that to become available.
2.8
UK institutions are aware that the development of innovative and cost-effective ways
of achieving knowledge transfer in the fields of systematics and taxonomy to
developing countries will be required if these countries' conservation and other needs
are to be met.
Q6.
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?
3.1
JNCC is not in a position to comment substantively on this question, but we would
refer you to our response under paragraphs 1.5 - 1.7 above in relation to the future
potential significance of these research areas to nature conservation.
Q9.
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 there is sufficient
collaboration?
4.1
JNCC considers that web-based taxonomy has enormous potential to transfer
taxonomic knowledge to the user community worldwide, to communicate innovative
and cost-effective taxonomic techniques to a dispersed audience, and to update
information rapidly.
4.2
Web-based taxonomic initiatives are developing rapidly, but as there is no effective
co-ordination of these there is no means of ensuring resources for this work are
directed cost-effectively, and there is a risk of proliferation, duplicated effort and
important areas not being addressed. To the end-user, the large scale European and
International initiatives appear competitive when in reality they are, in the main,
tackling different but related problems. For example, the Biodiversity Heritage
Library is digitising historical literature, the European Distributed Institute of
Taxonomy is mainly developing tools, while the Global Biodiversity Information
Facility is concentrating on joining digital data together.
4.3
The real constraint to ensuring web taxonomy delivers information that is readily and
easily used for conservation and other purposes is the absence of clear mechanisms to
support this. The current (mainstream) way taxonomic information is disseminated is
via a very fragmented base of institutional publication mechanisms, and subscription
journals. To make web based systems work, and become the mainstream, adequate
incentive mechanisms are needed to encourage this. These are not yet in place.
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
5
Consultation 0805
Q10.
What needs to be done to ensure that web-based taxonomy information is of high
quality, reliable and user friendly
5.1
The quality of information in web-based systems is generally of good quality and it is
possible to build peer review, and other quality assessment measures, into web-based
systems. For example, both UK National Biodiversity Network, and the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility have developed standards for describing
web-delivered data content. They have also produced tools that enable data to be
fitted to their intended applications.
5.2
The methods for ensuring quality can be developed. The issue is how to sustain the
resources for the web-based publication mechanisms so that they can run the
quality-assurance processes once these become available.
Q11.
How does the taxonomic community engage the non-taxonomic community? What
role do field studies play?
6.1
Taxonomy is specialist in character and not always easy to communicate effectively
to a non-specialist audience, but this is an important challenge that taxonomy needs to
address if its tools are to be used effectively, and if the resources needed to maintain
taxonomic expertise, and to develop new, and potentially easier-to-use, tools are to be
forthcoming.
6.2
In general, we do not consider that the taxonomic community has been successful in
communicating the value of its work to the non-taxonomic community, and outreach
activity needs to be developed considerably. Nonetheless, there are examples of
institutions with good outreach programmes, for example the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew.
Q13.
What is the state of training 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?
7.1
JNCC is not able to give a comprehensive response to this question, although we
would anticipate that the answer would be that there are gaps in current capacity and
that we would be very surprised (though pleased) to hear that future training needs in
systematics and taxonomy have been investigated and plans to meet these needs put in
place.
7.2
JNCC is aware that gaps can arise in expertise in the UK or in parts of the UK. For
example, although Scotland is of international importance for lichens, five years ago
there was a dearth of lichenologists working in Scotland and this caused significant
problems for lower-plant conservation there. Action was taken to address this but the
potential for gaps in expertise to emerge is always there.
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
6
Consultation 0805
7.3
It is necessary for specialists with taxonomic expertise to be deployed in the field and
the need for identification of species on sites cannot always be met by sending
samples too distant centres for identification purposes. The same issue applies in
implementing in situ species recovery programmes effectively, with lower plant and
invertebrate groups being those where lack of specialist taxonomic expertise is felt
most. Increasingly, as conservation effort addresses the needs of marine biodiversity,
an increased demand for taxonomic expertise in marine organisms can be expected.
Dr Malcolm Vincent
Director of Science
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
4 February 2008
SD/4 February 2008/013
File Ref:
7