1. EVALUATING NATURAL HISTORY
COLLECTIONS USE IN ONE
UNIVERSITY MUSEUM
Bethany Abrahamson
Museum of Southwestern Biology
University of New Mexico
Advisors: Kelly Miller, Tim Lowrey, Joe Cook

2. 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


3. 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


Current ways of informing about NHC importance


“Museums are for taxonomy”  Diversification of use
Reviews, editorials
A new method: Analysis

4. ANALYSIS
Quantifying NHC
impact on science
 Patterns
 Change over time
 An exploratory
study

Figure Courtesy of MSB Arthropods

5. 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

6. 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

7. CHALLENGES OF NHC ANALYSIS: COMPARING
ARTHROPODS TO VERTEBRATES AND BEYOND….
Different collections research applications
 Different collection management methods
 Different curator priorities

However,
collections do have
metrics that are
common across
divisions…
Figure courtesy of MSB Arthropods

8. PUBLICATIONS
Journal articles, books, gray literature (reports, etc.)
 What fields of study specimens are impacting


9. LOANS
Temporary or long-term loans, transfers of tissues
 What species are used, where they were collected


10. 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


11. 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

12. KEYWORDS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Biogeography
Conservation
Disease
Ecology
Evolution
Genetics
Life History
Morphology
Systematics
Variation
Search phrases
“speciation”
“evol”
“adapt”
“Female reproductive
tract form drives the
evolution of complex
sperm morphology.”

13. LOANS
1,784 loan records over time (1968-May 2013)
 54,509+ specimens loaned
 Locations (state/province) recorded

Figure Courtesy of Tom Giermakowski

14. Year
2011
2008
2005
2002
1999
1996
1993
1990
1987
1984
1981
1978
1975
1972
1969
1966
1963
1960
1957
1954
1951
1947
1944
1940
Number of Publications
PUBLICATIONS
Publication Titles Produced Each Year
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

15. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?
Evolution
(Spearman
Signed-Rank, ns)
 Morphology (ns)


Decreasing

Life History
(P<0.001)
0.12
Proportion Keyword
Arthropods
 Increasing
Arthropods
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
0.1
0.08
0.06
Evolution
Life History
Morphology
0.04
0.02
0
Decade

16. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?
Birds
 Increasing
Evolution (ns)
 Genetics (ns)
Birds
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
0.3

Decreasing


Disease (ns)
Variation (ns)
Proportion Keyword

0.25
0.2
Disease
Evolution
Genetics
Variation
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2013
Decade

17. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?
Fishes
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
Fishes
 Increasing
Conservation
(P<0.05)
 Genetics (ns)
0.7

Decreasing

Ecology
(P<0.05)
Proportion Keyword

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Conservation
Ecology
Genetics
0.2
0.1
0
Decade

18. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?
Herbarium
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
Herbarium
 Increasing
Ecology (ns)
 Morphology (ns)
0.14

Proportion Keyword
0.12
0.1
0.08
Ecology
Morphology
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
2000-2009
2010-2013
Decade

19. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?
Mammals
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
Mammals
 Increasing

Decreasing

Life History
(P<0.05)
0.3
Proportion Keyword
Genetics
(P<0.05)
 Systematics
(P<0.05)

0.35
0.25
0.2
Life History
0.15
Genetics
Systematics
0.1
0.05
0
Decade

20. WHICH KEYWORDS CHANGE IN FREQUENCY
OVER TIME?


Evolution (P<0.05)
Decreasing

Morphology
(P<0.05)
Reptiles and Amphibians
Proportion of Keywords v. Decade
0.12
Proportion Keyword
Reptiles and
Amphibians
 Increasing
0.1
0.08
0.06
Evolution
Morphology
0.04
0.02
0
Decade

21. HOW DOES THE ARTHROPODS DIVISION
COMPARE TO OTHERS OVERALL?
Proportion Keyword: Systematics
Proportion of Keyword “Systematics” vs. Decade
1.2
1
Arthropods
0.8
Birds
0.6
Fishes
0.4
Herbarium
0.2
Mammals
0
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Decade

22. DO CURATORS AFFECT THEIR PARTICULAR
AREAS OF RESEARCH?
Proportion of Keyword Before/After Curator Hire
0.6
Proportion
0.5
0.4
0.3
Before
After
0.2
0.1
0
Systematics
Arthropods
Evolution
Birds
Evolution
Fishes
Biogeography Conservation
Mammals
Rept. and Amph.
Research Interests

23. 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.
Proportion Loans with NM
specimens, Total Museum
Proportion

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Proportion NM
0.3
0.2
0.1
R² = 0.657
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

24. ARE SPECIMENS FROM NM BEING LOANED MORE
THAN OTHERS?
Proportion of Specimens Collected in NM
0.9
0.8
0.7
Proportion
0.6
0.5
Specimens in
Collection
0.4
0.3
Specimens
Loaned
0.2
0.1
0
Arthropods
Birds
Fishes
Herbarium
Division
Mammals Reptiles and
Amphibians

25. 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!)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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


29. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Advisors


Collection managers


K. Miller, T. Lowrey, J. Cook
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.

30. QUESTIONS?