UA EN
 
/
/
Cover т. 39 Cover т. 39 cover back

Download all articles
Download article
  Novikov A.V.,, Hushtan H.H., Hushtan K.V., Kuzyarin O.T., Leleka D.Yu., Nachychko V.O., Prots B.H., Rizun V.B., Savytska A.G., Susulovska S.A., Susulovsky A.S.
Outlining the aims and format of the project «Digitisation of natural history collections damaged as a result of hostilities and related factors: development of protocols and implementation based on the State Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine» // Proc. of the State Nat. Hist. Mus. - Lviv, 2023. - 39. - P. 19-30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36885/nzdpm.2023.39.19-30 Key words: russo-Ukrainian war, scientific natural history collections, virtual collections, digitisation, digitisation protocols, digital data This article presents the format and outlines the goals and objectives of the project: "Digitisation of natural collections damaged by hostilities and associated factors: development of protocols and implementation based on the State Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine." This project, financed by the National Research Fund of Ukraine as part of the competition "Science for the Reconstruction of Ukraine in the War and Post-War Periods", involves the development of protocols and testing of digitisation technologies for vulnerable natural history museum collections and will be implemented in 2023-2024. The State Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine collections will be used to develop the protocols. Still, in general, the project has broader tasks. It is primarily aimed at the digitisation and virtual availability of natural collections that have already been damaged due to hostilities and related factors or may be damaged or lost shortly. Among the most vulnerable collections are those that require careful observance of the storage regime and are the first to undergo destruction or can be easily lost due to direct damage (for example, fire). Among such collections of the State Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the collections of invertebrate animals and herbarium funds, which were formed in 1870 and today constitute the object of the national heritage of Ukraine, have been identified. These collections are unique regarding the representativeness of the western region of Ukraine, although they are not limited to it. If these collections are lost, restoring or replacing damaged samples with equivalent ones is impossible. The consequence of the loss or damage of these collections will be the formation of a significant gap in the documentation of the history of the flora and fauna of the western region of Ukraine, which will be impossible to fill with existing data or cover with other, including foreign, collections. That is why, in martial law conditions, it is essential to develop protocols for the rapid digitisation of the most valuable and most vulnerable samples that have already suffered or may potentially suffer damage due to hostilities.  
References
  1. Різун В., Щербаченко Т. 2019. Використання агрегаційних карт в інтернет-порталі Центр даних «Біорізноманіття України” для аналізу просторового розподілу біоти. GEO&BIO. Т. 18. С. 164–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/gb1814
  2. Шиян Н.М. 2011. Гербарії України. Index Herbariorum Ucrainicum. Київ: Альтерпрес. 442 с.
  3. Aghayeva P., Cozzolino S., Cafasso D., Ali-Zade, V., Fineschi S., Aghayeva D. 2021. DNA barcoding of native Caucasus herbal plants: potentials and limitations in complex groups and implications for phylogeographic patterns. Biodiversity Data Journal. Vol. 9. Article e61333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e61333
  4. Allmon W.D. 1994. The value of natural history collections. Curator: The Museum Journal. Vol. 37 No. 2. P. 83–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1994.tb01011.x
  5. Baker B. 2020. Biodiversity collections, data, and Covid. BioScience. Vol. 70 No. 10. P. 841–847. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa093
  6. Ball-Damerow J. E., Brenskelle L., Barve N., Soltis P.S., Sierwald P., Bieler R., LaFrance R., Ariño A.H., Guralnick R.P. 2019. Research applications of primary biodiversity databases in the digital age. PLOS ONE. Vol. 14 No. 9. Article e0215794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215794
  7. Balke M., Schmidt S., Hausmann A., Toussaint E.F., Bergsten J., Buffington M., Häuser C.L., Kroupa A., Hagedorn G., Riedel A., Polaszek A., Ubaidillah R., Krogmann L., Zwick A., Fikáček M., Hájek J., Michat M.C., Dietrich C., La Salle J., Mantle B., Ng P.K.L., Hobern D. 2013. Biodiversity into your hands – a call for a virtual global natural history ‘metacollection’. Frontiers in Zoology. Vol. 10 No. 1. Article 55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-10-55
  8. Beck J., Böller M., Erhardt A., Schwanghart W. 2014. Spatial bias in the GBIF database and its effect on modeling species' geographic distributions. Ecological Informatics. Vol. 19. P. 10–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2013.11.002
  9. Behm R., Chung C., Solomon L., Seltmann K. 2019. Imaging protocols for the UCSB invertebrate zoology collection [online]. UC Santa Barbara : Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2rv3m3q2 [Accessed 2 October 2023].
  10. Bradley R.D., Bradley L.C., Garner H.J., Baker R.J. 2014. Assessing the value of natural history collections and addressing issues regarding long-term growth and care. BioScience. Vol. 64 No. 12. P. 1150–1158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu166
  11. Cantrill D.J. 2018. The Australasian virtual herbarium: tracking data usage and benefits for biological collections. Applications in Plant Sciences. Vol. 6 No. 2. Article e1026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.1026
  12. Carter D.J., Walker A.K. 1999. Chapter 7: Collection environment, in D. Carter, A. Walker (eds.), Care and conservation of natural history collections [online]. Oxford, Butterworth, Heinemann. P. 139–151. Available at: https://www.natsca.org/sites/default/files/publications/books/Environment.pdf [Accessed 2 October 2023].
  13. Causey D., Janzen D.H., Peterson A.T., Vieglais D., Krishtalka L., Beach J.H., Wiley E.O. 2004. Museum collections and taxonomy. Science. Vol. 305 No. 5687. P. 1106–1107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.305.5687.1106b
  14. Chalmers N., Carter D., Walker A. (1999). Care and conservation of natural history collections [online]. NatSCA. Available at: https://www.natsca.org/care-and-conservation [Accessed 2 October 2023].
  15. Cota-Sánchez J.H. 2020. The value of virtual natural history collections for botanical instruction in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Brazilian Journal of Botany. Vol. 43 No. 4. P. 683–684. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-020-00663-y
  16. Davis C.C. 2023. The herbarium of the future. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 38 No. 5. P. 412–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.11.015
  17. Díez Díaz V., Mallison H., Asbach P., Schwarz D., Blanco A. (2021). Comparing surface digitization techniques in palaeontology using visual perceptual metrics and distance computations between 3D meshes. Palaeontology. Vol. 64 No. 2. P. 179–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12518
  18. Drew J.A., Moreau C.S., Stiassny M.L. 2017. Digitization of museum collections holds the potential to enhance researcher diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 1 No. 12. P. 1789–1790. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0401-6
  19. Geser G., Niccolucci F. 2012. Virtual museums, digital reference collections and e-science environments [online]. Uncommon culture. Vol. 3 No. 5/6. P. 12–37. Available at:https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/UC/article/view/4714> [Accessed 2 October 2023].
  20. Graham F. 2018. Caring for natural history collections [online]. Government of Canada. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/preventive-conservation/guidelines-collections/natural-history.html [Accessed 2 October 2023].
  21. Gries C., Gilbert M.E.E., Franz N.M. 2014. Symbiota – a virtual platform for creating voucher-based biodiversity information communities. Biodiversity Data Journal. Vol. 2. Article 1114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e1114
  22. Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez C., Santos M.T., Inácio M.L., Eisenback J.D., Mota M. 2020. Description of Longidorus bordonensis sp. nov. from Portugal, with systematics and molecular phylogeny of the genus (Nematoda, Longidoridae). Zoosystematics and Evolution. Vol. 96 No. 1. P. 175–193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.96.49022
  23. Hebert P.D., deWaard J.R., Zakharov E.V., Prosser S.W., Sones J.E., McKeown J.T., Mantle B., La Salle J. 2013. A DNA ‘Barcode Blitz’: rapid digitization and sequencing of a natural history collection. PLOS ONE. Vol. 8 No. 7. Article e68535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068535
  24. Holmes M.W., Hammond T.T., Wogan G.O., Walsh R.E., LaBarbera K., Wommack E.A., Martins F.M., Crawford J.C., Mack K.L. Bloch L.M., Nachman M.W. 2016. Natural history collections as windows on evolutionary processes. Molecular Ecology. Vol. 25 No. 4. P. 864–881. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13529
  25. Huber B.A., Sinclair B.J., Lampe K.H., Lampe K.H., Striebing D. 2005. How to digitize large insect collections – preliminary results of the DIG project, in B.A. Huber, B.J. Sinclair, K.-H. Lampe (eds.), African biodiversity. Boston : Springer US. P. 385–393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24320-8_38
  26. Jetz W., McPherson J.M., Guralnick R.P. 2012. Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 27 No. 3. P. 151–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.007
  27. Karim T.S., Burkhalter R., Farrell Ú.C., Molineux A., Nelson G., Utrup J., Butts S.H. 2016. Digitization workflows for paleontology collections. Palaeontologia Electronica. Vol. 19 No. 3. P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26879/566
  28. Knouft J.H. 2018. Appropriate application of information from biodiversity databases is critical when investigating species distributions and diversity: a comment on Dallas et al. (†). Ecology Letters. Vol. 21 No. 7. P. 1119–1120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12959
  29. Lane M.A. 1996. Roles of natural history collections. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. Vol. 83 No. 4. P. 536–545. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2399994
  30. Lister A.M., Climate Change Research Group. 2011. Natural history collections as sources of long-term datasets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol. 26 No. 4. P. 153–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.12.009
  31. Liu H., Wei J., Yang T., Mu W., Song B., Yang T., Fu Y., Wang X., Hu G., Li W., Zhou H., Chang Y., Chen X., Chen H., Cheng L., He X., Cai H., Cai X., Wang M., Li Y., Sahu S.K., Yang J., Wang Y., Mu R., Liu J., Zhao J., Huang Z., Xu X., Liu X. (2019). Molecular digitization of a botanical garden: high-depth whole-genome sequencing of 689 vascular plant species from the Ruili Botanical Garden. GigaScience. Vol. 8 No. 4. Article giz007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz007
  32. Mallott E.K., Garber P.A., Malhi R.S. 2018. trnL outperforms rbcL as a DNA metabarcoding marker when compared with the observed plant component of the diet of wild white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus, Primates). PLOS ONE. Vol. 13 No. 6. Article e0199556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199556
  33. Miller S.E., Barrow L.N., Ehlman S.M., Goodheart J.A., Greiman S.E., Lutz H.L., Misiewicz T.M., Smith S.M., Tan M., Thawley C.J., Cook J.A., Light J.E. 2020. Building natural history collections for the twenty-first century and beyond. BioScience. Vol. 70 No. 8. P. 674–687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa069
  34. Mosyakin S.L., Shiyan N.M. 2022. The MG Kholodny Institute of Botany and the National Herbarium of Ukraine (KW), Kyiv: Damage due to the missile strikes on 10 October 2022 [online]. Ukrainian Botanical Journal. Vol. 79 No. 5. P. 339–342. Available at: < https://ukrbotj.co.ua/archive/79/5/339> [Accessed 2 October 2023]
  35. Nash T.H., Brinda J. 2012. Digitizing North American lichen and bryophyte specimens in US institutions. Evansia. Vol. 29 No. 4. P. 115–115.
  36. Nelson G., Ellis S. 2019. The history and impact of digitization and digital data mobilization on biodiversity research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Vol. 374 No. 1763, Article 20170391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0391
  37. Novikov A. 2019. Digitization of natural collections – the way to immortality // Proceedings of the 14th International Young Scientists' Conference “Biology: From a Molecule Up to the Biosphere” (27–29 November 2019, Kharkiv, Ukraine). V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. P. 12–14.
  38. Novikov A., Sup-Novikova M. 2021. Simple and cheap photosystem for herbarium digitization. Plant Introduction. Vol. 91/92. P. 50–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46341/PI2021015
  39. O'Connell A.F., Gilbert A.T., Hatfield J.S. 2004. Contribution of natural history collection data to biodiversity assessment in national parks. Conservation Biology. Vol. 18 No. 5. P. 1254–1261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00034.x-i1
  40. Pennock H. 2017. Natural history museum security, in E. Dorfman (ed.), The future of museum of natural history. Routledge. P. 49–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315531892-4
  41. Popov D., Roychoudhury P., Hardy H., Livermore L., Norris K. 2021. The value of digitising natural history collections. Research Ideas and Outcomes. Vol. 7. Article e78844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.7.e78844
  42. Qing X., Bert W. 2019. Family Tylenchidae (Nematoda): an overview and perspectives. Organisms Diversity & Evolution. Vol. 19 No. 3. P. 391–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-019-00404-4
  43. Querner P., Pinniger D., Astrid H. (eds). 2013. Section I: IPM in museums [online] // Proceedings of the International Conference “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Museums, Archives and Historic Houses” (5–7 June 2013, Vienna, Austria). Vienna. P. 9–68. Available at: https://museumpests.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Vienna_IPM_1SM.pdf
  44. Sapaat A., Sabran S.F., Mohamed M. (2022). Occurrence of pest, the management of zoological museum specimens collection and climate change. Advances in Biological Sciences Research (Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS 2021)). Vol. 22. P. 193–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/absr.k.220406.029
  45. Schindel D.E., Cook J.A. 2018. The next generation of natural history collections. PLOS Biology. Vol. 16 No. 7. Article e2006125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006125
  46. Schindel D.E., Stoeckle M.Y., Milensky C., Trizna M., Schmidt B., Gebhard C., Graves G. 2011. Project description: DNA barcodes of bird species in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA. ZooKeys. Vol. 152. P. 87–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.152.2473
  47. Shultz A.J., Adams B.J., Bell K.C., Ludt W.B., Pauly G.B., Vendetti J.E. 2021. Natural history collections are critical resources for contemporary and future studies of urban evolution. Evolutionary Applications. Vol. 14 No. 1. P. 233–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13045
  48. Sikes D.S., Copas K., Hirsch T., Longino J.T., Schigel D. 2016. On natural history collections, digitized and not: a response to Ferro and Flick. ZooKeys. Vol. 618. P. 145–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.618.9986
  49. Singh P.R., Karssen G., Couvreur M., Subbotin S.A., Bert W. 2021. Integrative taxonomy and molecular phylogeny of the plant-parasitic nematode genus Paratylenchus (Nematoda: Paratylenchinae): linking species with molecular barcodes. Plants. Vol. 10 No. 2. Article 408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020408
  50. Sys S., Weißbach S., Jakob L., Gerber S., Schneider C. 2022. CollembolAI, a macrophotography and computer vision workflow to digitize and characterize samples of soil invertebrate communities preserved in fluid. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 13 No. 12. P. 2729–2742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14001
  51. Stone R. 2022. Ukrainian researchers flee war trauma and terror. Science. Vol. 375 No. 6586. P. 1209–1210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adb2027
  52. Suarez A.V., Tsutsui N.D. 2004. The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience. Vol. 54 No. 1. P. 66–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2
  53. Telenius A. 2011. Biodiversity information goes public: GBIF at your service. Nordic Journal of Botany. Vol. 29 No. 3. P. 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2011.01167.x
  54. Thiers B.M., Tulig M.C., Watson K.A. 2016. Digitization of the New York Botanical Garden herbarium. Brittonia. Vol. 68. P. 324–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12228-016-9423-7
  55. Ward D.F. 2012. More than just records: analysing natural history collections for biodiversity planning. PLOS ONE. Vol. 7 No. 11. Article e50346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050346
  56. Yost J., Sweeney P.W., Gilbert E.E., Nelson G., Guralnick R.P., Gallinat A.S., Ellwood E.R., Rossington N.L., Willis C.G., Willis C.G., Blum S.D., Walls R.L., Haston E.M., Denslow M., Denslow M., Zohner C.M., Morris A.B., Stucky B.J., Carter J.R., Baxter D.G., Bolmgren K., Denny E.G., Dean E., Pearson K.D., Davis C.C., Mishler B.D., Soltis P.S., Mazer S.J. 2018. Digitization protocol for scoring reproductive phenology from herbarium specimens of seed plants. Applications in Plant Sciences. Vol. 6 No. 2. Article e1022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aps3.1022

⇧
⇩