Science Strategy
In Depth
Towards a Science Stategy for Kew
A Framework for Science at Kew
Science Activities and Objectives
Refining the Focus of Kew's Scientific Programmes
TOWARDS A SCIENCE STRATEGY FOR KEW
Institutional Context for the Development of the Science Strategy – While Kew's future strategy for science should be aspirational, and should also attempt to respond to UK and global-scale challenges, it can only do so on the basis of a realistic assessment of Kew's current position. The following considerations are of particular importance in evaluating the future plans for science at Kew.
Financial Context: Income – Kew must operate within the limits of a balanced annual budget. Reserves must be protected for major capital projects and the Board does not accept the use of reserves to cover operating shortfalls. Grant-in-aid income from Defra for pay, superannuation and operating costs has been on a level funding basis since 2003/4, which in effect has meant a decline in funding from this source. We have been fortunate in that the recent period of relatively low inflation has meant that this decline has been less steep than might otherwise have been the case. However, there is no immediate prospect of an increase in provision of grant-in-aid for these functions in 2007/8. Grant-in-aid currently accounts for c. 60% of Kew's income. The potential short-term difficulties due to this decrease in grant-in-aid have been offset by the success of our visitor programme, with increased income due both to higher admission prices and to higher visitor numbers driving other income from retail and catering. Fund-raising by Foundation and Friends is largely focused on major capital projects for maximum effectiveness.
Financial Context: Expenditure - In the context of the tight income situation over the past five years Kew has strictly controlled expenditure, particularly in the areas of staff and running costs, which together account for c. £26.5 million of the total c. £37 million core expenditure budget. In practical terms this has meant that with priority given to annual salary increases several senior science positions have not been replaced at retirement. This has constrained the opportunities for introducing new components into Kew's science programmes, and these difficulties may well persist for the foreseeable future.
Commitments to Existing Staff - RBG Kew currently employs over 680 staff, over 60% of whom are specialist plant or fungal scientists or botanical horticulturists. Most have long term/permanent contracts. The expertise, operational and management skills of these staff are among Kew's greatest assets and a sound Science Strategy must seek to deploy them with maximum efficiency. The financial context and the constraints of current employment legislation mean that any change in programmatic direction that requires a significant alteration in the skills base must rely heavily on training of existing staff, and, to a lesser extent, natural wastage. Redundancies would be a departure from past practice and could have a negative impact on the industrial relations climate.
Interdependence of Kew's Science and Education Programmes - Like a major research university, Kew combines both research and education as part of its mission. Therefore, like a research university, Kew has both the opportunity and the responsibility to teach not only what we know, but also how we come to know it. However, in contrast to a university, Kew's programmes reach a much larger and broader public – pre-school to pensioners – and the institution is therefore unusually placed to contribute to a broader agenda of increasing public understanding of science. At the same time, close contact with the public should help identify those areas of science that are accessible and of maximum public interest and concern, thereby providing valuable information for the integrated design of future science and educational programmes. The world's great natural history museums offer similar opportunities but are generally constrained to use non-living materials in their public programmes.
Heritage Landscape - Kew's situation as a large green space and World Heritage Site embedded in an urban environment creates both opportunities and constraints. It provides opportunities for environmental education and in situ conservation close to a major population centre. The conservation management of Kew and Wakehurst Place must figure as part of our broader conservation strategy. However, it also means that the accommodation needs of Kew's collections, staff and programmes must be met while limiting impact on well-known and much-loved landscapes. Expansion options in terms of new buildings are limited and planning approval has, on occasion, been difficult to obtain. Potential new buildings must therefore be evaluated in the context of the comprehensive World Heritate Site Management Plan and the Site Conservation Plan.
Managing Inherent Programmatic and Policy Conflicts - Certain inherent conflicts emerge from different aspects of Kew's mission. These will need to be handled thoughtfully, creatively and sensitively in the ongoing development of Kew's Science Strategy. These inherent conflicts include: i) increasing overall access to the collections, while at the same time restricting access in certain areas due to the requirements of overseas partners who need to know that their intellectual property is being properly protected; ii) increasing income generation from Kew's own intellectual property, while at the same time continuing to participate in the free exchange of information that is essential in many areas of scientific work; iii) increasing the use of the collections, while at the same time fulfilling Kew's responsibility for their long-term preservation; and iv) producing products that are good, timely, useful – but perhaps not scientifically perfect – while at the same time striving for excellence and quality in Kew's science outputs.
Simplifying and Streamlining - Some of Kew's internal processes and administrative structures have evolved over a long period of time and do not adequately reflect the current context of the institution or meet today's needs. Therefore, there needs to be a strong emphasis on internal simplification and streamlining to ensure that the staff's energies are directed toward the most important objectives. Internal simplification and streamlining – even in the face of increased regulation from many different directions – must be a priority for the future. Simplification and streamlining cannot be safely delivered without enhanced management skills and increased and improved use of information technology. Greater empowerment coupled with greater capability from individuals will be necessary in order to improve the speed and efficiency of internal operations. It will also be important in enabling Kew to continue to deliver core functions and programmes, while at the same time retaining the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately to changing external requirements.
Clarity of Objectives and Purpose - Prioritisation is important to ensure that Kew produces the maximum value from its diverse activities, and also for clear communication both internally and externally. Reaching agreement on priorities among Kew's current and future projects was the primary objective of our Science Strategy review in 2000. There has been significant progress in this direction over the past six years, but there is still work to do. Prioritisation must be recognised as an ongoing process in response to changing needs and resource levels.
Striking the Right Balance - It must be recognised that no matter how effectively Kew's programmes are prioritised it will remain a complex institution with many different facets to its mission. There will always be more work to be done than there are resources available. A primary challenge to the Trustees, to the Directorate and to the staff must therefore be to strike the right balance among Kew's activities as a whole so as to ensure that science at Kew continues to develop and thrive in a way that is responsive to public needs both now and in the future.
A FRAMEWORK FOR SCIENCE AT KEW
Objectives of the Science Strategy - Given the external and institutional context outlined above, the importance and current status of plant diversity, and Kew's position as a unique centre of excellence for studies of the plant and fungal kingdoms, the key, ongoing, objectives of a new strategy for science at Kew must be to:
· Identify specific areas of scientific activity within Kew – both within programmes and across programmes – where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
· Identify areas of plant science research that would be appropriate for development at Kew, but that are not currently covered.
· Select some of these areas of scientific activity and establish them as institutional priorities for the future development of the science programmes.
· Establish an appropriate balance among the different programmes and sub-programmes.
· Rationalise resources, in the context of other institutional needs, to accord with the agreed priorities.
· Develop a list of specific action points/targets/objectives in each programme area, consulting overseas partners where appropriate and emphasising those that can be accomplished in the next five years.
· Build the administrative framework and organisational structures necessary to deliver the specific action points/targets/objectives efficiently and according to an agreed timetable.
· Monitor and review progress towards key objectives on a regular basis.
Developing a Strategy for Science at Kew - As public servants in the broad sense Kew must focus its strategy on meeting societal needs in the context of the National Heritage Act, other UK government priorities (including those in an international sphere), the requirements of our partners and the mission agreed by the Board of Trustees and the staff. These general needs and the specific needs of different user communities must be met by mobilising and utilising Kew's unique resources:
· Collections, which are the samples that we use to document and study plant and fungal diversity;
· Staff expertise on plant and fungal diversity;
· Gardens, landscapes and buildings, which we hold in trust for the public.
To be successful, a new strategy for the future of science at Kew must:
· establish clear priorities that guide day-to-day science and management decisions.
· ensure that Kew's unique assets are safeguarded, developed and used;
· differentiate Kew from similar institutions so that our contribution is distinctive and complementary to the work of others;
· demonstrate our relevance and position Kew as an organisation worthy of support from a broad variety of sources; and
· generate revenue in support of Kew's mission.
A Vision for Science at Kew – In this context our vision for science is to ensure that the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew are a leading international resource for:
· creating new and fundamental knowledge of plant diversity;
· synthesising and disseminating knowledge of plant diversity;
· facilitating the work of others on plant diversity;
to allow ourselves and others to:
· develop sustainable use of plant resources;
· reach informed decisions on the conservation and restoration of plant diversity;
· educate the public about the significance of plant diversity in sustaining life on this planet.
SCIENCE ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTIVES
What are the essential components of Kew's plant diversity work? - Starting from the proposition that Kew is primarily an institution devoted to increasing knowledge and public understanding of plant diversity, discussions during the development of the Science Strategy recognised that Kew's scientific work could be divided into five, intimately interconnected cross-cutting, programme areas:
· Collections;
· Baseline Plant Diversity Research;
· Comparative Plant Biology;
· Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Resources; and
· Conservation and Environmental Monitoring.
Collections - The collections are the indispensable samples that underpin all Kew's programmes and that are necessary for any meaningful study of plant diversity. Kew is required by the National Heritage Act to maintain the collections as "national reference collections". An important point that was emphasised by the staff in the 2000/1 Corporate Plan, and which has been emphasised further throughout the development of this Science Strategy and subsequent Corporate Plans is that the collections exist to be used, with due consideration for their long term security, availability and development. The primary focus of the collections programme should therefore be on improving the utility of the collections and maximising access for use by both the public and specialists.
The collections held by Kew are logically divided into three major groups:
i) preserved plant collections, ii) living and genetic resource collections, and iii) bibliographic and visual reference collections (See Table 1). The living and genetic resource collections serve two important additional roles beyond their basic function as living reference samples. First, they constitute the primary reason that visitors come to Kew. Consequently the manner in which they are displayed must meet the highest standards of excellence (for example in terms of contemporary horticulture). Second, the living collections – including the seed bank – provide an ex situ safe haven for many plant species that are threatened in the wild. The living and genetic resource collections thus have a critical function in conservation that is complementary to in situ conservation efforts. Some elements of the collections (e.g. bibliographic and visual reference collections) also comprise a significant amount of Kew's intellectual property, which needs to be protected, evaluated and used as a potential source of revenue. For more details see Collections Programme.
Baseline Plant Diversity Research - A critical component of any study of plant diversity is the ability to recognise, describe, catalogue and identify the fundamental units of that diversity. This basic research is essential for work in all areas of plant science, since any study or experiment that aims to be repeatable requires consideration of the identities of the plants involved (e.g. comparative plant biology, research in sustainable use, conservation, ecology, physiology and molecular biology). This basic plant diversity research work is no longer pursued in most universities even though the task of documenting plant diversity is far from complete in many parts of the world, especially those in which plant diversity is the greatest. This highlights the importance of Kew's continued baseline plant diversity research work in the context of UK science.
Baseline plant diversity research depends fundamentally on comprehensive reference collections, and our current ignorance of plant diversity, combined with the rate of destruction of natural vegetation in many parts of the world, provides the justification for continued targeted acquisition of plant material. Baseline plant diversity research also underpins in situ conservation activities because it provides information on the current status of plant species in the wild. It therefore provides the basis for describing the composition of vegetation and positioning of protected areas. Ultimately, by providing the means to identify plant species, it also allows effective monitoring of the success of in situ conservation efforts. A point that was emphasised repeatedly in discussions of the Science Strategy is that strengthening the connection between baseline plant diversity research and in situ conservation activities must be given a high priority. For more details see Baseline Plant Diversity Research Programme.
Comparative Plant Biology - The comparative plant biology component of Kew's science programme is the area most similar to that undertaken at those few universities and research institutes that have retained strong programmes in organismal and evolutionary plant biology. The question therefore arises as to why this work - with its objectives of documenting variation, reconstructing evolutionary relationships and understanding evolutionary patterns and processes - should be done by Kew? First, if Kew is to maintain its intellectual credibility in the plant sciences and its capacity for top-quality science, it must connect with, engage, and stay abreast of, other rapidly moving areas of the plant sciences. Second, because of its unrivalled comparative collections of living and preserved plants, as well as the expertise and outputs of specialists in numerous plant groups, Kew is uniquely placed to make important research contributions in this area. Such outputs will enhance its reputation – especially in the scientific community – but also more broadly.
Ultimately, high quality research helps build Kew's reputation, which is essential to attract resources from many sources. Kew's recent work in developing an evolutionary framework for plant diversity based on DNA sequence data shows what can be achieved through the synergy of modern approaches, extensive living collections, and the confluence of expertise in many different groups of flowering plants. For more details see Comparative Plant Biology Programme.
Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Resources - Human populations throughout the world utilise different species of plant for a great range of purposes including food, medicines, fuels, pest control, horticulture, dyes, forage for animals, and structural materials. Kew holds extensive documentation of the traditional uses of many plants around the world, as well as information on the role of plant-derived compounds in plant-animal-fungal interactions and pest control. This knowledge, along with the recognised multi-disciplinary expertise of staff and a well equipped natural product laboratory, enables Kew to research potential new uses of plant resources in collaboration with appropriate partners both in the UK and overseas. Kew is thus ideally positioned to assist in assessing how plants might meet specific societal needs, especially in the less developed regions of the world. Repatriation of information about the different uses of plant-diversity can also assist local communities in assessing the economic viability and sustainable use of indigenous plants. As recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity, promoting the use of plant resources in a sustainable way is also an essential component of building the case for conservation of plant diversity. For more details see Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Resources Programme.
Conservation and Environmental Monitoring - In the context of increasing human population and increasing consumption, which ultimately drive the degradation and destruction of natural habitats, Kew – as an institute focused on plant diversity – must play an active role in conserving that diversity for the future. Such plant conservation activities around the world depend fundamentally on baseline plant diversity research work for their success.
An important point, which has long been recognised and that was emphasised during the Science Strategy discussions, is that Kew’s conservation efforts must comprise a partnership-based, integrated approach that includes the practice of in situ conservation on its estates, and supports in situ conservation elsewhere in the UK and also overseas. Especially important are Kew's primary baseline plant diversity research outputs and associated by-products including monitoring tools, training, advice and support for the implementation of global conventions.
Kew's broad range of ex situ facilities, techniques and collections also provide a safe haven for many species threatened in the wild and an opportunity to carry out applied research to inform re-introduction, restoration, and other management programmes. The display and interpretation of threatened taxa in the living collections and the Millennium Seed Bank also facilitate effective engagement with the public, the corporate sector and other funding bodies and thereby help Kew meet its educational mission and secure resources for conservation activities. For more details see Conservation and Environmental Programme.
Business Aims of the Five Programmes - An overriding objective emerging from the Science Strategy is: to integrate and focus more effectively the resources of the different departments and the efforts in the five programme areas so as to maximise the impact of Kew's work as a whole.
Beyond striving for new levels of integration within the institution the following specific objectives or business aims were identified in each of the main activity areas:
Collections
· build the quality of Kew's collections and encourage access by others, so as to maximise their use and increase their scientific, utilitarian and conservation value;
Baseline Plant Diversity Research
· maximise the value of Kew's baseline plant diversity research, such as providing basic information on the units of plant diversity and their distribution, for the conservation and sustainable use of plant diversity by developing the relevance, quality and utility of information that Kew provides, and improving its dissemination through a focus on service, synthesis, partnership with others, and more effective use of technology;
Comparative Plant Biology
· demonstrate the excellence of Kew's scientific research, and maximise its impact, by more effective dissemination of the results to the broadest possible professional audience;
Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Resources
· support Kew's activities, and those of policy-makers and collaborators in the UK and overseas, in the sustainable use of biodiversity, through partnerships, capacity building, joint research, training and advice;
· maximise the value of Kew's work for the sustainable use of plant diversity by developing the relevance, quality and utility of information that Kew provides, and improving its dissemination through a focus on service, synthesis, partnership with others, and more effective use of technology.
Conservation and Environmental Monitoring
· support Kew's activities, and those of policy-makers and collaborators in the UK and overseas, in the conservation of biodiversity, through partnerships, capacity building, joint research, training and advice;
· maximise the value of Kew's work for the conservation of plant diversity by developing the relevance, quality and utility of the information that Kew provides, and improving its dissemination through a focus on service, synthesis, partnership with others, and more effective use of technology.
Two further objectives have been identified as of great institutional importance. These apply across the five programme areas:
Public Education
· maximise the value of Kew's scientific work for increasing public enjoyment and understanding of plant diversity and the need to encourage conservation and sustainable use.
Income Generation
· generate revenue to support Kew's activities, while also ensuring that Kew meets its responsibilities as public servants, and shares benefits arising from its scientific work in a fair and equitable way with its partners
These objectives in the main activity areas are summarised in Table 2.
DEFINING SUCCESS
How Should We Assess the Success of Kew's Scientific Work? - As part of the 2000/1 Corporate Plan it was agreed that we will only know if we are progressing towards our goals if we have the right systems in place to monitor our performance. Therefore, in the 2000/1 Plan we began to revise Kew's Key Performance Indicators to establish a set of headline measures for those science and other outputs that are of greatest importance. This process has been continued and further refined in developing subsequent Corporate Plans.
Even though the complexity and interconnectedness of Kew's science programmes is not easily captured by a small number of simple metrics, measurement of business outputs is critical for evaluating change and future success. Therefore, from the large numbers of measures that are regularly monitored at Kew, together with others developed as part of the Science Strategy, 10 have been identified that will be given priority in evaluating the success of Kew's scientific work. These are listed in Table 2, which also shows how they correspond to the five main activity areas.
REFINING THE FOCUS OF KEW'S SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMES
Kew in the Context of UK Plant Biology Institutions - Given the importance and urgency of an understanding of plant diversity, the question arises as to the extent to which this key role is adequately covered by other UK institutions, and how the focus of Kew's scientific programmes should be refined in this context?
Kew differs from most universities, and has a distinctive role in the context of other plant science institutions in the UK, in its focus on plant diversity. In particular, the extensive sample of plant diversity from all over the world represented in Kew's collections is a unique resource that is not replicated in any other institution. Kew differs from those few UK universities that still retain an interest in plant diversity in the breadth and depth of its activities, and also in its commitment to the conservation and sustainable utilisation of plant diversity.
In addition to Kew, there are two other major plant diversity institutions in the UK: the Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. It is among these three UK institutions that issues of coordination, cooperation, communication and complementarity are most important. Some patterns of complementarity are already apparent, in part as a result of the Morton Agreement that was put in place in the mid-20th century. Kew does not cover lichenised fungi, algae, liverworts, mosses and hornworts, which are all covered at the Natural History Museum. Similarly the Natural History Museum does not cover fungi (other than lichenised species) although mycology continues to be a research focus at Kew and at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh.
There is great ignorance concerning the diversity of fungi, a group for which Kew and the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh have a special responsibility in the UK. Any overall strategy for work on fungal diversity in the UK would also need to involve discussions with the CAB International (CABI), the third major UK-based institution undertaking research in fungal diversity.
In terms of geography, Kew has good global coverage, with particular strengths in Africa (including Madagascar and the Mascarenes), tropical Asia and Brazil. These areas are complementary to the strengths of the Natural History Museum (Europe, North and Central America) and also, to some extent, to those of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, which has a marked strength in temperate Asia.
Kew in the Context of International Plant Diversity Institutions - In terms of developing a Science Strategy for Kew issues of coordination, cooperation and complementarity also arise with other major international plant diversity institutions. Therefore, as part of the science strategy process the work of Kew was compared to that of a number of other major international plant diversity institutions, namely the National Herbarium of the Netherlands; Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris); Field Museum (Chicago); the Smithsonian Institution (Washington); New York Botanical Garden; Missouri Botanical Garden; Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney; National Botanical Institute (South Africa); and Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. These were chosen from a large set of potential comparisons in part for the availability of data (especially the Field Museum) but also because their facilities, research interests, size and organisational aims most closely match our own. This benchmarking exercise was undertaken during 2000. It has not since been updated but because major collections and research emphases change relatively slowly we would not expect any pronounced differences from the patterns detected in 2000. Tabulated results are available upon request.
In this comparative context, Kew's collections are unusual in their size and international scope compared to any other major plant diversity institution in the world. This is most obviously reflected in the size of the herbarium and the scope of the living collections.
Kew is most comparable in research focus and major resources to the major international herbaria associated with botanic gardens. Some institutions (National Herbaria of the Netherlands, Field Museum, Smithsonian Institution) are located in museums and either do not possess, or possess only limited, living collections. Kew also differs from most other major plant diversity institutions in its strengths in microscopic and chemical analyses (e.g. anatomy, karyology, phytochemistry), its approaches to biological screening, and the extension of its ex situ conservation activities into large scale seed banking. Like other major plant diversity institutions, with the exception of the Smithsonian Institution (through the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution) and possibly the Missouri Botanical Garden (through connections with universities in the St. Louis area), Kew has not extensively exploited the potential research connections between plant diversity and ecology.
Plant diversity is strongly concentrated in one major group - flowering plants - and this group is the main focus of Kew's scientific work. Within flowering plants most of the species diversity is concentrated in one major subgroup – the eudicots (c. 75% extant species) – and, to a lesser extent in monocots (c. 22% extant species). About 50% of described species of flowering plants are accounted for by the ten largest families. Comparison of Kew's strengths in these families with our international peers shows that Kew has research strengths in nine of these groups and is unusual in this regard. Typically, international peers have research strengths in four or fewer of the top 10 families.
Looking in more detail at monocots (c. 22% of living flowering plant species) shows that Kew has excellent coverage of the major families compared to other institutions.
In contrast to monocots, while magnoliids are very interesting from an evolutionary point of view they are generally of low diversity, and Kew does not have significant expertise in any of the few species-rich groups. Lauraceae are covered at the Missouri Botanical Garden and also at Heidelberg. Annonaceae are covered at Utrecht and Paris.
Eudicots comprise the bulk (c. 75%) of flowering plant diversity. Of the 15 largest eudicot families Kew has particular strengths in eight, namely: Compositae, Leguminosae, Rubiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Lamiaceae, Apocynaceae, Myrtaceae and Acanthaceae. Of these families, Compositae, Leguminosae and Euphorbiaceae also represent significant research interests at several other major institutions, while Rubiaceae, Lamiaceae, Apocynaceae, Myrtaceae and Acanthaceae, are relatively poorly covered elsewhere.
Considering the ecological occurrence of the most species-rich families in which Kew conducts research, it is clear (not surprisingly) that they attain their greatest diversity in the wet and dry tropics where angiosperm diversity is at its maximum. To a lesser extent these families are also important in non-tropical drylands. Therefore, an ecological focus in the wet and dry tropics and non-tropical drylands complements Kew's specialisation in these families.
In terms of geographic scope, broad comparisons of collections with international peers show that Kew has probably the best level of general coverage on a global basis – in its herbarium collections. In particular, there are clear areas of strength in Africa (including Madagascar and the Mascarenes), tropical Asia and tropical South America. In Africa, Kew's collections have great strength in many areas at a level that matches, or in some cases exceeds, the strength of the major herbaria in these regions, such as the National Botanical Institute, South Africa or the National Museums of Kenya. In Asia, Kew's collections also equal or exceed those of the major regional herbaria (Bogor and Singapore) for major areas of diversity including Malaysia and Indonesia. In the Americas, Kew's collections provide good general coverage and unrivalled historical collections with a particular focus in Eastern Brazil and Guyana. The New York Botanical Garden also has good representation in Brazil, but its main focus is in the Amazon and the Atlantic Rainforest.
In summary, Kew's strengths lie in the general breadth of its collections, specifically across the tropics, particularly in parts of Brazil and the Old World, and in the breadth and depth of its research programmes in monocots and several major eudicot families.
The Current and Future Focus of Kew's Scientific Programmes - Only by sharpening the focus of Kew's scientific programmes will we be able more effectively to combine and integrate the resources and talents of different departments and programme areas to maximise the impact of Kew's work as a whole. Based on the above inventory and evaluation of Kew's programmes in the context of other institutions, the following statement emerged from the Science Strategy process to define the current and future focus of Kew's scientific activities.
Kew seeks to increase knowledge of vascular plant diversity on a global basis and in fundamental ways. In particular, Kew's scientific work targets plant groups that are priorities for conservation and sustainable use. Within this broad remit Kew's priority spheres of operation are:
· UK and UK Overseas Territories
· Drylands (especially dry tropics but also the Mediterranean region)
· Wet Tropics
· Monocots (palms, grasses, orchids etc.)
· Global Issues and Themes
These five key spheres of operation are summarised against the five programme areas in Table 3A.
Based on the focus in the Drylands and Wet Tropics, Kew seeks to work collaboratively, in mutually-agreed long-term partnerships in a small group of countries that are rich in biodiversity and in which our work can make a significant impact. Kew is committed to supporting the efforts of its overseas collaborators to conserve and utilise sustainably their indigenous plant diversity.
Emerging from the focus on the Drylands and Wet Tropics, work at Kew targets specific groups of plants in addition to monocots, that are diverse, ecologically significant and important from the standpoint of the conservation and sustainable utilisation of plant resources.
By continuing to emphasise these five main spheres of operation in its scientific programmes Kew can:
· build on the existing strengths of the collections and expertise across the whole institution;
· improve internal planning so as to maximise in-house complementarity and minimise duplication of effort;
· maximise complementarity and minimise overlap with the work of other institutions;
· work on systematic groups and geographic areas that are significant from the standpoint of an overall understanding of plant diversity, but that currently lack critical baseline data;
· aim to answer questions which are intractable at a local level, for example, understanding the large, widely distributed genera, and develop large-scale syntheses in our areas of expertise;
· explore new areas of plant and fungal science and bring information from all disciplines together to produce a unique synthesis and synergy;
· contribute more effectively to efforts in the conservation and sustainable use of plant diversity;
· develop and expand collaborative relationships with overseas partners.
The potential for change is summarised in simplified form in Tables 3A and 3B.
It follows from the above that Kew will not seek to cover all groups of plants and all geographic areas at the same degree of intensity. Therefore, Kew will not seek to cover in depth:
· temperate and boreal forests (e.g. Southern Hemisphere temperate forests, North American temperate forests), except for those taxa that are conservation priorities; or
· New World wet tropics (including Central America, Amazonia and the Andes), except for the Mata Atlantica rain forest which is an area of major conservation concern;
· many systematic groups (see below), including some that are a focus of current activities.
The five priority spheres of operation identified for Kew's scientific programmes are considered in more detail below.
UK and UK Overseas Territories - A clear focus on UK and its Overseas Territories is important because it enables us to fulfil our statutory obligations to the UK Government in terms of providing expertise and advice on plants and fungi. Kew's scientific work also helps the UK Government realise its commitments under the CBD, including Plant Diversity Challenge, the UK response to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, and under Agenda 21 (see United Kingdom). For example, part of the mandate of the Millennium Seed Bank is the preservation of the UK flora (see Millennium Seed Bank Project). Kew also maintains the British National Collections of fungi (see Mycology). Kew's involvement in local Agenda 21 helps to implement important goals at the local level. A focus on the plant diversity of the UK and UK Overseas Territories is also important in terms of the message it sends to our overseas partners (see United Kingdom; UK Overseas Terrritories). It is unreasonable to argue for the conservation of plant diversity overseas if Kew is not also committed to conservation closer to home.
Among the UK Overseas Territories are several oceanic islands, and these isolated land masses have been identified by the CBD as a key priority for biodiversity conservation. Such islands often have high biodiversity, significant endemism, and are also under great threat from invasive species, climate change and human disturbance (see UK Overseas Terrritories). As many as 50% of the plant species of island floras are endangered (Cox, 2000).
For specific examples of Kew's activities in the UK and UK Overseas Territories see United Kingdom and UK Overseas Terrritories.
Drylands (including Mediterranean region) - Drylands cover about a third of the Earth's land surface and support around a sixth of the world's population. It is in these regions where there is the greatest need for careful stewardship of plant resources so that they can be utilised sustainably for the future. In the drylands threats to the survival of plant diversity are pronounced. This is especially true in the tropical, arid and semi-arid regions of the world where vast areas are being lost annually to the combined effects of desertification and overuse. Dry tropical rangeland is one of the two biomes currently under greatest threat at a global level.
A better understanding of the plant diversity of dryland regions has great potential benefits in poverty alleviation, reversing land degradation, and improving sustainable community development. There is a general paucity of information on useful dryland plant species; especially in many tropical drylands. Information on useful dryland species is needed to support aid and development projects and sustainable use of resources. This information is often lacking in-country. Kew's SEPASAL database seeks to address this need and disseminate relevant data to those who need it.
The Millennium Seed Bank has a particular focus on the drylands biome. In addition to the needs outlined above, selection of the drylands as a particular target for the Seed Bank project confers the following practical advantages: i) higher proportion of seeds from drylands are desiccation tolerant (orthodox seeds); ii) clear seasonality greatly assists the timing of seed collecting efforts; iii) most species are herbs, shrubs or small trees (i.e. practical to collect); iv) seeds are generally small.
Work supporting a focus on drylands is carried out in all Kew science departments at both systematic and regional levels (see below).
Worldwide - Dryland habitats include many plants of key systematic importance for integrated monographic and phylogenetic studies and thus work in these areas supports many of Kew's broad objectives in comparative plant biology.
Africa - A reasonably complete baseline of systematic knowledge is required to underpin work on plant conservation and sustainable use in the drylands of much of eastern and southern Africa, and this provides the justification for the completion of Flora of Tropical East Africa (FTEA) and Flora Zambesiaca (FZ). Current taxonomic work for these projects is focused on monocots and very diverse dicot groups for which baseline data are lacking. Revisions of Acanthaceae, Lamiaceae, Apocynaceae (Asclepiadoideae) and Compositae for these Floras are well underway. Kew's African Floras provide knowledge to support conservation by contributing data on distribution, habitat and relationships. A priority for the future must be to find improved ways of making these data more accessible and more useful (see Drylands: Africa). Work on the sustainable uses of plants from the drylands of Africa currently concentrates on monocots, legumes, Lamiaceae and Euphorbiaceae.
Madagascar - The baseline Flora of Madagascar is co-ordinated by MNHN Paris. Kew has a role in providing an account of the Euphorbiaceae in collaboration with other institutions. This follows the recently published Orchids of Madagascar (1999) and Legumes of Madagascar (2001). Dryland habitats in Madagascar are under severe threat (see Madagascar). Forty-eight percent of genera and 95% of species found in the southern spiny desert are endemic to this region of the country – they occur nowhere else (McNeely et al., 1990). Euphorbiaceae and Leguminosae are major families in these drylands, and, as such, are important target families for the Millennium Seed Bank. Dioscoreales are also an important Madagascan group in which we are conducting research.
South America - Baseline plant diversity research work at Kew concentrates on the Araceae, Cactaceae, Compositae, Labiatae, Leguminosae, Myrtaceae, Poaceae and Rubiaceae in the North East Brazilian caatinga vegetation. This underpins work on conservation, sustainable use and data repatriation in the region (see Drylands: Tropical America). Through the Plantas do Nordeste (PNE) programme Kew is exploring ways of indirectly deploying its research knowledge for sustainable development at the community level, and in so doing is involved in poverty alleviation. PNE`s principal aims in biodiversity work are to strengthen local (within North East Brazil) taxonomic capability (people and tools) and to provide quality information on plant species records and distributions for use in biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation strategies at local, state and federal levels. PNE`s baseline plant diversity research work is focused on the Caatingas, the Brejo Forests and the Campos Rupestres of North East Brazil; the Programme has also built up a checklist of the flora of the whole region with the ultimate aim of linking this to authoritatively named herbarium vouchers, as well as input from geographical information systems (GIS).
Wet Tropics - The focus of Kew's work in humid tropics is in tropical moist forests, a widely accepted term coined by Sommer (1976) that covers tropical lowland rainforest, tropical montane forests and tropical monsoon/seasonal forests. A focus on the wet tropics is particularly important because many of these areas are "hot-spots" of plant diversity. A very large percentage of world plant diversity is found in these regions and they are virtually unexplored for fungi. Kew has a long tradition of work in the wet tropics, in particular wet tropical Africa, South East Asia and the Atlantic Rain Forest (Mata Atlantica) of Brazil. The wet tropics are largely threatened by human immigration, which exerts pressure on fertile land for agriculture, and also by increased rates of uncontrolled logging. Large areas of these habitats are unexplored and botanically undocumented due to the practical difficulties of field investigation in wet tropical conditions. As a result, baseline data are often missing and levels of ignorance about plant diversity are high.
Work supporting Kew's focus on the wet tropics is carried out in all Kew science departments and at both systematic and regional level (see below).
Worldwide - Wet tropical vegetation contains many plants of key systematic importance in integrated monographic and phylogenetic studies of major groups of angiosperms or of angiosperms as a whole. Much of the extraction of commercial hardwoods is centred on the wet tropics; Kew is currently leading an international project to produce a revised collaborative version of interactive database for wood identification.
Africa - Cameroon is the most diverse area of the wet tropics of Africa (see Wet Tropics: Africa). The tropical rain forests of western and central Africa, including the Congo Basin, form the third largest remaining block of this hyper-diverse biome in the world (Linares, 2000). In order to support conservation through the production of conservation checklists, a programme of general collecting and inventory is underway. Systematic work in botany over and above the existing baseline of Flora of West Tropical Africa (FWTA) is largely focused on Leguminosae and Lamiaceae
Madagascar - Wet forests in Madagascar are under great threat (see Madagascar). In 1988, Myers reported that they had been reduced by 5,200,000 ha, so that the extent of remaining primary forest is 1,000,000 ha. He estimated that 82% of the flora of the original forest was endemic to that region. Complementing the conservation work of Kew and other institutions in drylands of Madagascar, we are currently focusing on the Rubiaceae in the wet tropics, providing an account of the economically important genus Coffea. Analysis using GIS of the remaining primary vegetation of Madagascar is currently being revised and updated and a guide to the woody plants has been published as a collaborative project with the Missouri Botanical Garden.
South America - Work is focused on collaborative research projects aimed at preparing and disseminating baseline literature (checklists, Floras and monographs) in selected floristic areas of high diversity, particularly the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, which has high levels of endemism and has undergone a drastic reduction in extent such that only 1-5% of the original forest remains (McNeely et al., 1990). There is a systematic focus on Araceae, Myrtaceae, Rubiaceae and Cactaceae (tribe Rhipsalideae). No other major institution outside Brazil works on South American members of Myrtaceae (see Myrtaceae), which are very diverse, and our collaborative work also supports both taxonomic projects and investigations into plant use. Collaborative work in Amazonian Brazil is not a major Kew focus, but has previously included work with the Royal Geographic Society Maracá Project, the Ducke Reserve DfID-funded programme, and the development of links in Belem and Manaus. Additionally, Margaret Mee-funded scholars at Kew work on wet forest ecosystems in Brazil.
South East Asia - Kew plays a part in a collaborative network of plant diversity institutions seeking to provide a taxonomic baseline for the region (see Wet Tropics: SE Asia). The focus is largely on monocots, especially orchids, palms and Araceae, and on selected floristic areas of high conservation importance.
Monocotyledons - There is currently a major international systematic focus on monocot research, partly fostered by Kew's initiative in establishing and supporting the international series of monocot symposia. Kew maintains a leading role in monocot research through a broad range of multidisciplinary and synthetic studies (see Monocots I: General, Alismatids & Lilioids; Monocots II: Commelinids; Monocots III: Orchids). Monocots are also of prime economic importance in agriculture and horticulture.
Kew has a long and comprehensive tradition of work on monocots, spanning all departments and programmes. This record of accomplishment is well respected among peers in this field. Kew has recognised experts in the major monocot groups such as Araceae, Arecaceae, Cyperaceae, Dioscoreales, lilioid monocots, Orchidaceae and Poaceae. No other institute has an equivalent range of systematic expertise combined with experience and extensive data in monocot anatomy, palynology, biochemistry and cytogenetics. These additional specialisations are particularly relevant in monocots (especially lilioid monocots), where more traditional morphological characters (such as those of the flower), although significant at the species level, are often less relevant at higher taxonomic levels such as family and order.
A focus on the monocots is further justified because monocot groups are of major economic importance in drylands and of conservation importance in the wet tropics. As a result of their economic or horticultural value, monocot taxa often become threatened with extinction due to over-collecting. A more comprehensive summary of current and future work with monocots is provided under Monocots I: General, Alismatids & Lilioids; Monocots II: Commelinids; Monocots III: Orchids.
Global Issues and Themes – One of the most common pleas received from conservationists, ecologists, scientists in other disciplines and the general public is for overviews of plant diversity which allow them to access the current state of knowledge on a particular plant without having to trawl through the extensive, but often patchy, primary literature. Kew has a long tradition of the production of such global syntheses of information on plant diversity, beginning with Genera Plantarum and Index Kewensis in the nineteenth century (see Large-Scale Syntheses).
Modern technology has greatly facilitated the preparation of major synthetic compilations, but the exponential growth in published information has also rendered such enterprises more challenging and their products more urgently needed than ever before. The vast quantities of information that must be scanned and sifted increase the probability of omission or error so that the outputs can rarely be complete or completely accurate. However, online provision of data allows the compilers to continue to update and improve their product, enhancing its value to the user. It is also increasingly common for the user to be involved in this process by submitting additions and corrections to the compilers.
Feedback on recent products, such as the International Plant Names Index, indicates that global overviews, even those which are acknowledged to be incomplete and internally inconsistent, are useful, greatly valued and much consulted by a broad user community. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, for instance, seeks the production of a working list of all known plants. Thus clear demand justifies an ongoing commitment to these activities. Similarly, fundamental syntheses and analyses of research data are disproportionately important in building awareness of the excellence of Kew's research. For more detail on current activities of this kind see Large-Scale Syntheses.
Current and Future Systematic Focus - Kew's key geographic and biome foci on UK and UK Overseas Territories, Drylands and Wet Tropics, when viewed in the light of the current work and expertise at Kew, together with an assessment of conservation priority, potential for sustainable use, and complementarity with other institutions, suggest that Kew should make a long-term commitment to fundamental research on the diversity and systematics of the following groups: monocots, Leguminosae, Rubiaceae, Malpighiales/Euphorbiaceae, Lamiaceae and Myrtaceae.
The five dicot groups listed as long-term research commitments have high levels of diversity and are of great importance for conservation and sustainable use. They are also natural evolutionary units (monophyletic), with the exception of Euphorbiaceae, for which further resolution of relationships within the order Malpighiales is required. Similarly, important unanswered supra-family questions are also found in the Lamiales and Myrtales.
Further details on the background and rationale for our ongoing work on each of these groups can be found in the respective Science Team’s documentation as follows:
Monocots: Monocots I: General, Alismatids & Lilioids; Monocots II: Commelinids; Monocots III: Orchids
In addition to these long-term research commitments on particular angiosperm groups we also have a broad commitment to ongoing systematic research in Mycology, the background and rationale for which are outlined in the Mycology team documentation (see Mycology).
Other Systematic Commitments - The above groups have been identified as long term research commitments over the next 10–20 years. It is necessary to supplement these primary areas with other short or medium term, less intense, systematic foci for a variety of reasons. Current short or medium term foci are discussed below.
Acanthaceae - Kew's recently retired staff member’s expertise is highly regarded and is being transmitted, in part, to a recently-recruited member of staff. Work is underway, as a priority, to complete the accounts of Acanthaceae for FZ and FTEA.
Apocynaceae - Accounts for the FZ and FTEA are not yet completed and our existing staff member’s expertise is highly regarded and his knowledge is sought by collaborative partners to resolve relationships within the family.
Compositae - This is the most diverse family of angiosperms in terms of species number. It is widely distributed family with many large genera, representing 10% of all species in nearly all floras. It has many and multiple uses, especially in medicinal and horticultural fields, but is still under-studied. It is also an important constituent family in drylands. However, this family does not form a major long-term systematic focus at Kew because it is covered (albeit barely adequately) by other institutions. Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure that Kew's important Compositae collections are well curated and that their use is maximised. Expertise also needs to be maintained to feed into baseline plant diversity research projects of high conservation value. Kew has staff members with highly regarded expertise in Old and New World Compositae. The first volume of FTEA Compositae is now in press but ongoing work in this family is urgent and necessary to complete the African Floras.
Ferns - Further work on ferns is also necessary to complete the African Floras. In the UK context as a whole systematic work on ferns needs to be coordinated with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and the Natural History Museum to ensure that expertise on fern diversity does not disappear completely.
Gymnosperms - Kew's work on this group has been of particular value because of the many threatened species. Future emphasis on conifers is not a priority and needs to be coordinated with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh in the broader UK context.
NEXT STEPS
The development of a Science Strategy for the Royal Botanic Gardens provided a framework for the advancement of Kew's science programmes. It resulted in a new way to conceptualise the scientific work that Kew undertakes, which de-emphasises the role of individual departments in favour of a focus on plant diversity in the broad sense, including its relevance to contemporary concerns about the sustainable utilisation and conservation of plant resources.
The consultative process through which the Science Strategy was developed helped inform all of Kew's science staff about the nature of Kew's existing science portfolio. It also identified key priorities for the future and resulted in the creation of cross-departmental science teams charged with guiding research in their areas to achieve Kew’s Business Outcomes as measured against our Key Performance Targets. The teams plan and report their activities within the framework of five Science Programmes and it is at the level of general actions for each science programme and specific actions for each science team that the agreed strategy is now being implemented and continues to be refined.
REFERENCES
Balick, M.J. & Cox, P.A. (1997). Plants, People and Culture. Freeman, New York.
Cox, P.A. (2000). Endangered Plants, Vanishing Cultures: Ethnobotany and Conservation. In Raven, P.H. & Williams, T. (eds). Nature and Human Society: the Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Press, Washington. 435-442.
Govaerts, R. (2001). How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 50: 1085-1090.
Govaerts, R. (2003). How many species of seed plants are there? – a response. Taxon 52: 582-584.
Hammond, P.M. (1995). The current magnitude of biodiversity. In Heywood, V.H. (ed). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press. 113-128.
Hawksworth, D.L. (1991). The fungal dimension of biodiversity: magnitude, significance, and conservation. Mycological Research 95: 641–655.
Hooper, D.U.; Chapin, F.S.; Ewel, J.J.; Hector, A.; Inchausti, P.; Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J.H.; Lodge, D.M.; Loreau, M.; Naeem, S.; Schmid, B.; Setala, H.; Symstad, A.J.; Vandermeer, J.; & Wardle, D.A. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75 (1): 3-35.
Kinzig, A.P., Pacala, S. & Tilman, G.D. (2002). The Functional Consequences of Biodiversity. Princeton University Press.
Krell, F.T. (2000). Impact factors aren’t relevant to taxonomy. Nature 405: 507–508
Leakey, R. & Lewin, R. (1996). The sixth extinction. Doubleday, New York.
Linares, O.F. (2000). Creating Cultural Diversity: Tropical Forests Transformed. In Raven, P.H. & Williams, T. (eds). Nature and Human Society: the Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Press, Washington. 420-434.
May, R.M. (2000). The dimensions of life on Earth. In Raven, P.H. & Williams, T. (eds). Nature and Human Society: the Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Press, Washington. 30-45.
Mcneely, J.A., Miller, K.R., Reid, W.V., Mittermeier, R.A. & Werner, T.B. (1990). Conserving the world's biological diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF–US, the World Bank.
Myers, N. (1988). Threatened biotas: "Hotspots" in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8 (3): 1-20
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Pimm, S.L. & Brooks, T.M. (2000). The sixth extinction, how large, where and when? In Raven, P.H. & Williams, T. (eds). Nature and Human Society: the Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Press, Washington. 46-62.
Plaza, L.M. & Gonzalez-Bueno, A. (1998). Research evaluation in plant science: the different connotations of journal impact in traditional and emerging disciplines. Taxon 47: 387–390.
Raven, P.H. (1988). Our Diminishing Tropical Forests. In Wilson, E.O. & Peter, F.M. (eds). Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 119-122.
Sommer, A. (1976). Attempt at an Assessment of the World's Tropical Forests. Unasylva 28: 5–25.
Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80: 1455-1474
Tudge, C. (2000). The Variety of Life. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wilson, E.O. (1992). The Diversity of Life. Allen Lane, London.